PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Considered; amendments agreed to.

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.
	To be considered on Tuesday 14 October.

Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Foundation Hospitals

David Cameron: What recent representations he has received from NHS trusts about the Government's plan for foundation hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

John Reid: My ministerial colleagues and I have had a number of discussions with the chairs and chief executives of NHS trusts, and this dialogue will continue.

David Cameron: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. If foundation status is really about giving hospitals greater freedom, will he look again at the strict rule under which no hospital can increase its income from private patients? Is he aware that Nuffield Orthopaedic hospital in Oxford, where NHS patients will always come first, has used private income to subsidise the NHS and help to pay for investment? It wants to continue to do so, but the base year is very restrictive. Will the Secretary of State ensure that foundation status will not make things worse in that regard?

John Reid: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a deep interest in health care and the health service. He will understand that we are trying to achieve a balance between the power that we decentralise and the maintenance of a balanced benefit for all the people of this country through the national health service. The cap that has been put on the proportion of patients who can be treated privately in the new foundation hospitals is intentionally set to be fair to the vast majority who rely on the NHS. It will be fixed as a percentage of the income derived from private patient activity that applied to each NHS foundation trust in the financial year ending April 2003. That will ensure that the cap applies fairly to all trusts, irrespective of when they make the transition to NHS foundation trust status.

Gordon Prentice: What representations has the Secretary of State received about the Government's proposals, which I think are very opaque? Will people be able to vote if they have paid £1, or if they have pledged to pay £1? What estimates have NHS trusts made about the likely turn-out in the elections?

John Reid: Discussions are under way in this House and in another place about the exact details, but let me make it clear that it is a good thing that we should reduce the amount of diktats from the centre and pass more control to people in local areas. If we are truly going to have a national health service capable of meeting the differentiated needs, ambitions and expectations of 60 million of our fellow citizens today, we shall have to decentralise. I commend to my hon. Friend the authority on these matters who said that he was deeply conscious that one of the great dangers of a Government health service was over-centralisation, and that the wider the decentralisation that could be achieved, the better it would be for everyone. That authority was, of course, the founder of the national health service, Nye Bevan, speaking in 1946.

Patsy Calton: Does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the regulator gives precise instructions about the cap? Clause 15 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which is currently going through the other place, has confused people with regard to the capping of private health care. As it stands, the clause does not insist that the regulator should cap private health care.

John Reid: I think that this issue is pretty clear to everyone, whatever opinion they may hold, except the Liberal Democrats. If the hon. Lady can show me anyone outside the Liberal Democrats who is confused about it, I will certainly consider their case. This is, however, a refreshing change for me. Having listened all week to objections from the trade unions, the producers organised, it is nice to hear the comments of the Lib Dems—the producers disorganised.

Elderly Care

Jeff Ennis: What steps he is taking to increase support available for older people to stay in their own homes.

Stephen Ladyman: Our published priorities set attainable but challenging targets for health and social care bodies to increase the support available for older people living in their own homes. We are supporting that with an average 6 per cent. annual increase in real terms in resources for personal social services between 2003 and 2006.

Jeff Ennis: What steps could the Government take for people suffering from dementia and other long-term illnesses who are occupying hospital beds to help them to move back into their own homes rather than into a nursing home, if that is what they wish? There is definitely a demand from elderly people to stay in their own homes for as long as possible.

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are getting the message loud and clear from older people that they want to have the choice of staying in their own homes. When people are awaiting discharge, a package of care should be put together that is based on their choices and their needs. The delayed discharge grants that we have made available are for improving services in a person's home. Discharge into their home should be every bit as real a choice as discharge into a nursing home.

Richard Bacon: Sir Nigel Crisp recently acknowledged before the Public Accounts Committee that planning for the discharge of older patients from NHS acute hospitals, which is related to the support available for older people in their own homes, is now worse than it was four years ago. Why is that?

Stephen Ladyman: If Sir Nigel Crisp said that, he is wrong. Delayed discharge grants have given resources to local councils and local health authorities to put in place a mechanism by which delayed discharges can be eradicated from our hospital system. Any local council that has been doing a reasonable job of planning for this eventuality will make a profit from the delayed discharge grants, because it will receive more in grant than it is having to pay in fines.

Andy King: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about extra resources for this purpose. In the past, people's perception has all too often been that they have been forced to remain in their own homes. Will he assure us that people will have real choice, and that it will be based on sound assessments of their needs?

Stephen Ladyman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He is right that in the past it was assumed that people would go into nursing homes or residential care. We are getting away from that. It is sad that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are devising policies to return to a system whereby people are forced into nursing homes instead of being given the choice of care in their own homes.

Simon Burns: Why will domiciliary care workers in this sector from 1 October face an increase since July of 142 per cent. in the fees they have to pay for their Criminal Records Bureau check?

Stephen Ladyman: They will have to pay an increase because we intend to ensure that those who care for old and vulnerable people are of suitable character and reputation. Surely that is something with which the Conservative party would agree. We intend the CRB checks on care workers to be self-funding, but the employers will pay the bills for them.

Bill O'Brien: I noted the reply that the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) on support for people in their own homes. Will he comment on the divide between medical and social care? Strategic regional health authorities have set up a matrix to guide people, because that division causes problems and has an impact on the care of people in their own homes and in nursing homes.

Stephen Ladyman: I think that the issue to which my hon. Friend refers—if I am wrong I would welcome a meeting with him afterwards—is the dispute that arose because the ombudsman discovered that certain people were not being properly assessed for NHS continuing care. The Government have acknowledged that there were some failures in some areas. Different criteria were being used and were not being properly applied. We have instructed all the strategic health authorities to come up with consistent criteria, and to review the cases of those who may not have been properly assessed for continuing care. Those people will be fully compensated for any financial losses that they incurred as a result of any decision.

Long-term Care

Nicholas Winterton: If he will take steps to increase funding for the provision of long-term care.

Stephen Ladyman: The Government are committed to providing the investment that is needed to secure real improvements in long-term care. We are determined to see that older people get the support that they need to lead life with respect and dignity. We have announced an overall real-terms increase of £1 billion for older people's social services by 2006.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister not accept that capacity across all sectors is approximately 74,000 places lower than it was at the peak of provision in 1996, and that in the 15 months leading up to April this year 13,400 elderly persons' places have been lost in residential homes—primarily independent and private homes? While the new minimum standards have clearly made a contribution to that by placing substantial burdens on small homes, the Minister must surely admit that underfunding is part of the problem. Will he please direct further attention to the situation, and try to ensure that the places that are required are provided?

Stephen Ladyman: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we will look at the issues carefully; but the market contains 10,000 more care home places than there are people waiting for them, according to Laing and Buisson's figures.
	As the hon. Gentleman says, there has been a contraction of the care home market since 1996. The implementation in the early 1990s of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 created a change in the market, which has continued to contract at a fairly steady pace ever since.
	If the hon. Gentleman would like some advice, let me refer him to the Minister who oversaw the start of the contraction—the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

Mark Todd: Aston Hall hospital in my constituency provides long-term care for people with learning disabilities. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend about delays in its reprovisioning programme. Will he ask his officials to turn their minds again to the need for urgent solutions and assistance for a reprovisioning process that, although tortuously and complexly designed, has won the support of all concerned?

Stephen Ladyman: I will certainly undertake to look again at the details of that case. Support for learning-disabled people is one of my highest priorities in my new portfolio, and I intend to ensure that the substantial extra resources made available by the Government for their care will indeed go to them.

Andrew Mitchell: Does the Minister think it right for Birmingham city council to pay twice as much for places in its own residential homes as it pays for places in the private sector? Is that not a massive abuse of the taxpayer, as well as an abuse of the hard-working small business people employed in that sector?

Stephen Ladyman: We trust local authorities to make decisions about their areas. It is they who are in a position to assess the needs of their local care home markets, and they will pay the price set by those markets for the services that they require. They will tender for places, the marketplace will offer a price, and they will deal at that price. Why should they be expected to pay more than the market is asking them to pay?

Harry Barnes: Will my hon. Friend ensure that any increased funding that finds its way into private care homes leads to extra controls and regulations governing the standards operating in those homes? Is he happy that we are currently receiving value for money?

Stephen Ladyman: If my hon. Friend can give specific examples of our not receiving value for money, I shall be pleased if he brings them to me and I shall take them up with him. I am happy that in general we are receiving value for money. I think that the new standards we have set are a vital resource, ensuring that we drive up the quality of care for older people and for anyone who must live in a care home or nursing home. They are, I believe, an essential tool in the Government's armoury, enabling us to improve services for everyone everywhere.

Paddington Health Campus

John Randall: What the latest estimate is of the costs of the Paddington Health Campus.

John Hutton: £800 million.

John Randall: The Minister will be aware that three years ago the estimated cost was £360 million. Three years later, when we have still not even seen outlined planning permission, why have the costs spiralled out of control?

John Hutton: Costs have risen because the new development at Paddington Health Campus will be bigger than the one originally proposed in 2000, so that we can provide more treatment for NHS patients in London—including in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency—better facilities and expanded research facilities. Most people in London will surely regard an £800 million investment in the NHS as good news.

John Wilkinson: Does the Minister realise that this is the most grotesque waste of public money, inasmuch as facilities of outstanding excellence exist at Harefield hospital, which the local community continues to support? As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) knows, only yesterday the Moor Park Lions gave £37,000 of their own money to the Heart Science Foundation. It would cost only £18 million fully to modernise Harefield hospital; is that not what the people want and deserve?

John Hutton: I genuinely understand the concern of the hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) about Harefield hospital; indeed, all hon. Members will have some sympathy with the points made. However, the Government have to decide what is best for the NHS across the capital as a whole, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the investment in the Paddington Health Campus will produce for the NHS in London some of the best facilities to be found anywhere in the world. That is money well spent.

Ambulatory Care Units

Kevin Brennan: If he will make a statement on the development of ambulatory care units in the NHS.

John Reid: The prevention of preventable pain for patients will always be this Government's top priority. That is why the national health service is developing a large number of new treatment centres, which will enable more patients to receive more operations more quickly. Some will be run by NHS providers and others by independent sector providers under contract with the NHS, but all will contribute to the relief of preventable pain.

Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. In developing his plans for England, will he look at the example of the ambulatory care centre in the University hospital of Wales, in Cardiff, which is providing excellent, state-of-the-art treatment for patients very quickly? That is an example of the treatment that all of us would like to see from a world-class national health service. If the centres that he is developing in England are of the same standard as the one serving my Cardiff constituents, I am sure that hon. Members throughout the House will welcome this development.

John Reid: I am grateful for those comments. What my hon. Friend says is true, and I have seen with my own eyes the results that treatment centres can produce. A centre in Bradford—it is part of the NHS; it is not in the independent sector—has reduced the waiting time for minor operations from about 12 months to six weeks. If we consider the vast reduction in the time that 22,000 patients in the Thames valley needing cataract operations will have to wait in pain, we can see the real benefits.
	All these new systems are being introduced on top of the huge investment in resources that we are making in the NHS itself, which is already producing more doctors, more nurses and more staff. I am delighted to tell the House that, according to figures released this morning, in the past three months the number of GPs increased by another 293, and the number of consultants rose by 321. We still have a long way to go, but we are getting there.

Richard Taylor: Will the Secretary of State explain the dual tariff, whereby the NHS pays more for operations and procedures in privately run treatment centres than in NHS treatment centres?

John Reid: If such an unfair tariff existed, I would explain it; it does not, but I shall explain the mechanism, which has perhaps confused the hon. Gentleman. The tariff that will be paid to treatment centres, whether they are NHS treatment centres or centres in the independent sector, will be exactly the same as that paid by primary care trusts to normal, traditional hospitals inside the NHS. It is true that in the case of NHS establishments, we also pay other costs, including building costs; but we will pay the independent sector an additional premium from the centre, in order that it can set up quickly, acquire staff and maintain the buildings.
	So the tariff is exactly the same, and the important point that I ask the hon. Gentleman to stress is this. In the past week, I have heard the views of consultants, some of whom appear not to want us to reduce waiting lists. I can understand why, because doing so reduces the demand for private care. I have heard some trade union leaders standing up against these changes and I have heard a range of producers and providers doing the same. For goodness sake, could we for once think of the people whom the health service exists to serve—the patients? About 250,000 of them will have extra operations from the new treatment centres, in addition to the 300,000 more operations that the NHS is already providing, so many people are suffering much less pain as a result of our changes.

NHS Services

Nick Brown: What plans the Department has to extend the private sector's role in the provision of NHS services in the coming year.

John Hutton: We will use independent providers where it represents good value for money, increases NHS capacity and reduces the amount of time that NHS patients would otherwise have to wait for their treatment. In line with our manifesto commitments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week the preferred providers who will operate 26 new treatment centres for NHS patients, some of which will begin to operate later this year.

Nick Brown: The national health service has entered into a contract with the American company, UnitedHealthcare, to pilot its Evercare system of care for the elderly in 10 pilot areas. Now that the pilots have been up and running for a while, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Americans are achieving the substantial growth that they forecast in the annual report, and whether the NHS is achieving the 50 per cent. reductions and consequent savings in the pilot areas?

John Hutton: I am afraid that I do not have that information to give to my right hon. Friend, but I shall certainly arrange to send it to him. On the Evercare arrangements, the American company is providing primary care trusts with a consultancy—a service and systems redesign service—to allow NHS staff to improve the care that they provide to NHS patients. It is a sensible and useful arrangement that has been entered into at a local level. All the research data in the US show the success of the Evercare model and I am confident that it will have a similar effect in England.

Evan Harris: The Minister said that good value for money was a necessary factor for private sector operations, so does he accept that the cost per case at the Oxford eye hospital is less than £400 per cataract, whereas purchasers who want to buy services for patients at the best possible value are being forced to pay more than £750 per case under the private sector scheme, not counting the market forces premium? Why did the Secretary of State say that 20,000 people in the Thames valley were waiting for cataract operations when the Department's own website says that it is only 6,000? Is it not the case that only the dodgy figures make the position anything like value for money, and is not the proposal ideological rather than one that gives quality, value-for-money care for patients?

John Hutton: No. I have had many questions from the hon. Gentleman, but I have yet to hear him put one sensible question to any Minister in the Department of Health. He is in the unique position of agreeing with everything in principle, but opposing everything in practice. Labour Members have one simple word to characterise that—opportunism.
	On the specific example that the hon. Gentleman provided, if 6,000 people are waiting for their operation, that is 6,000 too many. By getting additional capacity into Oxfordshire, we are freeing the other capacity of the Oxford eye hospital so that it can concentrate on more specific procedures. The hon. Gentleman needs to get his act—and his figures—together, because he is talking complete and utter cobblers.

David Hinchliffe: Will the Government undertake a review of the concordat with the private sector and examine the extent to which NHS consultants who have private practices are seeing NHS patients in those practices and are being paid substantial amounts to do so? Some of my constituents have raised concerns about how they have had to wait to see an NHS consultant. They find it bizarre then to see them in private hospitals and private clinics paid for by the NHS, especially when many of the NHS waiting list problems arise as a direct consequence of consultants' private practice.

John Hutton: We keep all those systems and arrangements under careful and close review. It might also be of some help to hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends, if I draw their attention to the new arrangements that I hope will apply in the new consultants contract, should consultants agree it, which would try to provide a better way to regulate the relationship between private and NHS practice. That is an important development that the NHS should seek to bring to a closure.

Tim Loughton: In a debate just before the recess, the Chancellor positively frothed at the mouth at the thought of moving patients into the private sector and he brandished a price list that claimed that operations by independent sector providers typically cost twice as much as in the NHS. If so, why have the Minister and the Chancellor already signed a concordat for 100,000 operations with private providers such as BUPA this year? Why are they now accelerating that process by signing up mostly foreign providers to perform an additional 250,000 operations in the new diagnostic and treatment centres? Or were the Chancellor's figures completely misleading? Will the Minister now publish the real comparable cost of all operations in the NHS, those purchased by the NHS from the independent sector in DTCs, and those performed on those NHS escapees sent to hospitals on the continent?

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has moved from using the language of total politics last week to talking complete rubbish this week. The treatment centre programme will introduce significant additional capacity into the NHS at good value for money prices—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not want to listen, and for good reason, because I will put him right on those matters. The big difference that he should recognise—the Opposition like to think of themselves as people of business—is that the NHS obtains a better price for the operations if they are bought in bulk, instead of being purchased on the spot market. The prices will be significantly lower. The final prices have still to be agreed, but my right hon. Friend and I are of the one view that this approach represents a sensible direction for the NHS that will provide value for money for NHS patients.

Private Health Insurance

Shona McIsaac: What plans he has to introduce private health insurance for non-emergency health care; and if he will make a statement.

John Reid: I have no plans to introduce private health insurance for non-emergency health care as it would be inefficient and unfair, and would prolong pain for many people who could not afford it. The Government stand by the founding principle of the national health service of providing equal access to health care, free at the point of need.

Shona McIsaac: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has put it on the record that the Government have no plans to introduce such a grossly unfair system into our NHS, or to introduce any barmy ideas such as the patient passport, which would destroy the NHS. Apart from being philosophically flawed, are not such plans financially flawed, because they would put an extra burden on the taxpayer to the tune of millions of pounds?

John Reid: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right. Those plans would divert up to £2 billion from the NHS to subsidise those who, in many cases, are already paying for private health care. The difference between what we are doing by using the spare capacity of the private sector to supplement the big increases in capacity in the NHS, and what the Opposition would do, is that we are buying in bulk at a price that is near, at or below the NHS tariff and we are providing the service free to everyone. The Opposition would create a position—[Interruption.] Let us ask the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Why should old-age pensioners have to pay £5,300 for a hip operation, which is what they would have to pay if the patient passport were introduced? Perhaps he could tell us why someone should have to pay £6,700—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us another time.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State now regret scrapping, in 1997, the tax rebate on private insurance—taken out voluntarily in many cases—for those over 65, and thus placing a huge burden on the NHS and adding to the increase in waiting lists when the Government came to power?

John Reid: No, I do not. I have cited previously the US example, where 40 per cent. of all personal bankruptcies are related to the inability to pay medical costs. That reinforces my point. I repeat: this Government will not charge up to £1,700 for a cataract operation, or £9,000 for a heart bypass. People in this country should have their health care provided free at the point of need. This Government will provide that.

NHS Recruitment

Sydney Chapman: What his strategy is for recruiting professionals in the NHS.

Melanie Johnson: The Government are implementing a range of measures to recruit more health care professionals. They include improving pay and conditions, encouraging the NHS to become a better, more flexible and more diverse employer, increasing training, investing in child care, and attracting back returners.

Sydney Chapman: May I direct the Minister's attention to the serious shortage of midwives in the NHS? Will she confirm that today there are 5,000 fewer midwives than there were 10 years ago? That has led the prestigious Royal College of Midwives to say, with typical professional restraint, that that is putting mothers at unnecessary risk. Will she describe the Government's strategy for overcoming this undoubted crisis?

Melanie Johnson: Our target is to take on an extra 5,000 midwives, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that so far we have taken on an additional 3,000 towards that target.

Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend support the work being done by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, which is training medically qualified refugees and asylum seekers to enable them to work in our health service?

Melanie Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information about that training programme. It is important to get new input into the NHS from people from diverse backgrounds. They will bring new ideas into the NHS, and some of them will be able to return to their own countries and take some of our best practice back with them. We welcome a diverse work force, and we are working to encourage that. I congratulate Liverpool on the scheme being run there.

Liam Fox: In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State said that consultants do not want the Government's diagnostic and treatment centres because they will reduce their private practice income. Does the Minister really believe that that is consultants' main objection to the scheme? Is such rhetoric likely to help or hinder acceptance of the consultant contract, which is so crucial to the Government's delivery of their health plans?

Melanie Johnson: My right hon. Friend did not say that. He made a comment about some consultants, and the hon. Gentleman is seriously distorting that remark. The hon. Gentleman does not mention patients in this matter. We believe that we need to nurture staff in the NHS, but most of all we need to ensure that the service provides the best treatment for patients, free at the point of need. The needs, pain and conditions of those patients are our first and foremost concerns. We are meeting that target. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have difficulty with that, as neither he nor his party supported the investment that makes many of those developments possible.

Liam Fox: One difference is that I have worked in the NHS and treated NHS patients. That is a lot more than any member of the Government Front Bench has done. The Government's attempt to characterise the medical profession in the way that they do is deeply disturbing. They lack understanding of the motivation of many staff. For example, I draw the Minister's attention to the proposed ophthalmology DTC in Thames valley. Nine consultants have written to say that the Thames Valley health authority assessment
	"shows that there is no mismatch between capacity and demand for cataract surgery"
	in Buckinghamshire. They add:
	"Nevertheless managers in Wycombe PCT . . . have taken the lead in discussions with the Department . . . about a cataract surgery private DTC, based on information"
	that is erroneous. They say:
	"Throughout these discussions there has been no reference to the Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust ophthalmic department".
	The consultants in that department were clearly not consulted, and they say—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going a long way from recruitment. If the hon. Gentleman can mention recruitment, that might help me.

Liam Fox: The essential point is that, without professional satisfaction, there will be no further recruitment of any staff. When consultants, talking about their patients, say:
	"Our ability to manage chronic ocular disease, provide sub-specialty care and an ophthalmic casualty will be severely curtailed",
	that is not improving patient care—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister might manage an answer.

Melanie Johnson: First, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is completely wrong in his first assertion. I have worked in the national health service—not treating patients, it is true, but I have worked in the NHS. Perhaps he would like to research a few more of his facts so that he gets something right.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's preoccupation with what is happening in Thames valley only highlights the fact that the area has some of the longest waiting lists in the specialties that he is talking about. Patients are experiencing the problem, not consultants. It is the experience of patients, the fact that they need treatment and that we want them to have that treatment as soon as possible that drive the sensible changes and developments that we are undertaking. I remind him that we have more consultants in the NHS, which is something that his party could not afford to do. We have had over 4,500 more between September 1999 and March of this year, and many more are in training. We have 55,000 more nurses since 1997 and more of many of the other professions and therapists who work in the NHS. The overall picture is focused on the needs of patients and actually delivering for those patients. The hon. Gentleman and his team seem to have entirely lost sight of that objective.

Andrew MacKinlay: What work has been done regarding the accreditation of health service professionals who gained their qualifications in European Union applicant countries, especially, but not exclusively, in relation to dentistry and stomatology? Is there not a chance that some of the UK royal colleges will drag their feet and not facilitate things so that such people can work in this country from 1 May to our benefit and theirs? What is the position for professionals from EU applicant countries?

Melanie Johnson: We need to make sure that the quality of people coming to work in our NHS is up to our standards. I am sure that my hon. Friend entirely shares that view. We also need to ensure that recruitment of professionals from elsewhere is not to the detriment of countries that are experiencing difficulties, which is why we have agreements, for example, with the Governments of the Philippines, Spain and India on those issues.

Andrew MacKinlay: What about the European Union?

Melanie Johnson: I was just coming to that. Within the EU, we are recruiting a lot of general practitioners and other doctors, but that tends to be where there are surpluses. My understanding is that there is no major difficulty, but if my hon. Friend has evidence of difficulties we shall, of course, look into them, to cut them down and make things easier.

Angela Watkinson: How will the Minister encourage GP recruitment in outer-London boroughs such as Havering, where the primary care trust has found that newly qualified GPs are attracted either to inner cities or to rural areas but not to suburban areas? In Upminster, in particular, GP practices offer salaries well in excess of the average yet still cannot recruit.

Melanie Johnson: Over the past few months, we have recruited another 300 GPs. We recognise that there is an issue in London. For the first time, we are improving the standard of primary care right across the capital in a marked and systematic way. A lot of investment is going in. For example, there are golden hellos for GPs returning to or coming into the NHS. There is also the LIFT—local improvement finance trust—scheme, which is especially designed to improve recruitment and retention in the London area.

NHS Dentistry

Peter Pike: What progress his Department is making with improving NHS dental service provision.

Rosie Winterton: The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will give new duties for primary care trusts to secure primary dental services using the £1.2 billion currently held centrally. In the meantime, an NHS support team has started work with primary care trusts to overcome problems in areas where it is hardest to find an NHS dentist.

Peter Pike: My hon. Friend will know that two additional NHS funded dentists' posts were announced for Burnley last month, but that is just one small step in dealing with a major serious problem in Burnley. Does she recognise that 20 per cent. of calls to NHS Direct in Lancashire are about dental health problems? Where are those people who are entitled to free dental treatment supposed to get the care that maintains their dental health, rather than emergency care, which they can get when it is absolutely essential?

Rosie Winterton: I am very much aware of the problems that my hon. Friend mentions. I think that the new support team has already been once to Burnley, but it will return there with an action plan to look at how the situation can be improved. There are short-term measures, but, as I say, in the longer term we have a comprehensive programme in place to ensure that local commissioning of dental services can take place and that the £1.2 billion can be used locally, rather than centrally.

John Baron: The Minister will be aware from recent figures that 1.5 million fewer people are registered for NHS dental treatment than in 1998. Only last month, the British Dental Association said that
	"millions of people are unable to register with an NHS dentist."
	Last year, the Audit Commission stated that
	"40 per cent. of dental practices do not accept children or adults for continuing care."
	The Prime Minister pledged in his 1999 party conference speech that everyone would be able to see an NHS dentist within two years. Four years later, it is obvious to everyone that that is not happening. I ask the Minister one question: why have the Government so disastrously failed to fulfil their promise to dental patients?

Rosie Winterton: One of the problems that we face is clearing up the mess left by the previous Tory Government. Conservative spokesmen should know very well that the contract that they introduced, and the way in which they implemented it, led NHS dentists to walk away. We are putting that right. We recognise that there is a short-term problem and we are backing that up with proper resources, while in the longer term we have a comprehensive plan to provide proper primary care dental services, commissioned locally.

Diana Organ: Is the Minister aware that it is impossible for a new patient in the Forest of Dean to find an NHS dentist? That problem has been exacerbated recently by the fact that two very good NHS dentists have transferred to the private sector because they say that they cannot cope on their fee level. Is she aware that that is a particular problem for the disabled, the unemployed, children and people on low incomes? If we believe, as we do, that health care should be free at the point of need and that we should build capacity in that NHS service, why are we not doing so in dentistry?

Rosie Winterton: If my hon. Friend's constituents are facing problems with NHS dentists, she might like to consider whether emergency facilities and dental access services are available, and I certainly undertake to write to her about that. She is right to suggest that, of course, we want a proper system of dental care provision in the longer term. One of the other problems that we have to consider is the number of dentists who are being trained. We have undertaken a dental work force review, so that, in the longer term, working with the professions and the British Dental Association, we can ensure that we improve the number of dentists who come forward in the first place.

Health Care Assistants

Helen Jones: What progress has been made in encouraging health care assistants to retrain as nurses; and if he will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: We have increased the training commissions for health care assistants to retrain as nurses from 1,249 in 1999, to a planned 3,340, starting training this year. That will be matched by an increase in salary support from £11.8 million in 1999 to £122.9 million this year.

Helen Jones: That is very encouraging news and an excellent Government policy initiative. However, may I point out to the Minister that my local trust has simply stopped all secondments for health care assistants to train as nurses without any negotiation or proper communication with its staff? What would she say to the women in my constituency who have paid for their access to higher education courses, got themselves places on nurse training and then found themselves blocked? Are not those exactly the kind of dedicated people whom we want to encourage into nursing? Is it not a short-sighted policy for a trust to be doing that when it is having to recruit nurses from abroad?

Rosie Winterton: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. I understand that the trust is reviewing the current situation following the appointment of a new chief executive and a new finance director—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Opposition Front-Bench Members are being very rough in not allowing the Minister to address the House.

Rosie Winterton: I also understand that the idea is to start the secondments again from next year. The strategic health authority is working with the trust to try to resolve the problem. In the meantime, I will certainly ask the local work force confederation development group to keep in touch with my hon. Friend about the situation.

Marion Roe: Will the Minister tell the House what action the children's national service framework care group work force team is taking to address the current and projected deficiency in the children's nursing work force, and what measures are being taken to address the retention of specialised nurses in areas such as neonatal and children's intensive care?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of specialist nurses, what more we can do to encourage those specialisms, and ensuring a career development path so that when shortages exist we can look at constructive ways of filling them. With regard to the point about the national service framework, I undertake to write to her about the details of the question that she asked.

Nurse Practitioners/Community Pharmacists

Doug Naysmith: If he will make a statement on the enhanced role that he plans for (a) nurse practitioners and (b) community pharmacists in the provision of health care.

Rosie Winterton: Nurses and community pharmacists are central to our plans to modernise and improve access to high-quality NHS services. We have a comprehensive strategy to increase the numbers and skills of nurses, developing new roles such as nurse consultants, extending prescribing responsibilities for both professions and expanding the services that pharmacies provide.

Doug Naysmith: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of using the skills of those two professions much more effectively in the national health service. In the case of community pharmacy in particular, what plans does she have to encourage pharmacists to provide places for confidential consultations on their premises, which will go a long way to ensuring that patients are willing to seek the excellent advice that is available and that is currently underused?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. There are a number of ways in which pharmacists can play a greater role in primary health care. In our vision for pharmacy, in the new contractual framework that we are designing and in our response to the recent Office of Fair Trading report, we are putting together a series of measures to give primary care trusts, too, the ability to talk with local pharmacists about commissioning services so that exactly that kind of project can be undertaken.

David Heath: May I ask the Minister to add optometrists to the list of professions that she uses in that way? Is it not sensible not only to use the skills of those professionals both pre-operatively and post-operatively in the management of patients, but to extend the use of those professionals, and particularly their high-street facilities, for minor diagnostic tests and screening?

Rosie Winterton: There are a number of ways in which we can examine the roles of such professionals, especially through the delivery of primary and preventive health care. Obviously, we are considering closely how that may be done through community pharmacists, but the opportunity to consider other areas that could make exactly such a contribution is always open.

General Practitioners

Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to reduce shortages of general practitioners.

John Hutton: As part of our commitment to increase the number of GPs, a range of measures have been implemented including financial incentives, extended opportunities for flexible working and improved family-friendly working practices. The latest figures show that the total number of GPs working in the NHS has increased by 1,500 in the past three years. In addition, we have met our target of recruiting an extra 550 GP registrars a year ahead of schedule.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I recommend to him a report that has been compiled by Barnsley council on the acute GP shortage there, which is one of the worst in the country? The report draws attention to an ageing population of GPs and list sizes that border on the excessive. It makes several recommendations including a mixture of independent and salaried GPs, golden hellos, retention bursaries, training and recruitment and assistance with administration and premises. Will he work with Barnsley council to try to address the shortage as soon as possible?

John Hutton: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to that piece of work by Barnsley council, which is a model of the contribution that local authority scrutiny committees may make. He is right in his analysis—the council's view is right, too—that there is a specific problem in Barnsley, which the primary care trusts and the strategic health authority are trying to resolve. The report to which he draws attention points in the right direction. Additional resources have been made available this year to try to improve GP recruitment. We are recruiting more GP registrars—GPs in training—this year in Barnsley than we have been able to do in the past. I think that investment in the local LIFT scheme will help to improve premises and the infrastructure of primary care, which will all help the recruitment and retention efforts that are necessary.
	Finally, the new GMS—general medical services—contract will especially address what I am sure that my hon. Friend considers an anomaly in the present funding arrangements: money flows to primary care depending on the number of GPs employed locally. If there is a shortage of GPs in Barnsley and other parts of country, clearly the money does not flow in the way in which he and I would like. That will change under the GMS contract and the additional investment will significantly benefit Barnsley primary care trust.

Vincent Cable: What estimate has the Minister made of the additional number of GPs who will have to be recruited to meet the requirements of the working time directive? If those doctors are not available because there has not been long-term planning, does he expect that the shortage will result in cuts to patient provision or that the directive might not be implemented in some instances?

John Hutton: I do not think that there will be a particular problem with primary care and the working time directive. Obviously, we talk closely with the British Medical Association and the NHS locally to resolve those issues; I do not underestimate the fact that they are serious for the NHS. The principal concern about the working time directive is focused on emergency out-of-hours care, maternity and paediatrics, which is where the bulk of the work is being done. The growth in the GP work force will help to ease the pressure. I am sure that all hon. Members share our desire to ensure that GPs work fewer hours in a more family-friendly environment. That would be good for doctors and, certainly, for NHS patients.

Joan Walley: I welcome the work that the Government are doing to train more people and I am sure that it will reap benefits. However, as in Barnsley, there is an acute shortage of GPs in Stoke-on-Trent, North. It is a short-term problem because so many GPs are retiring at the same time. Will my right hon. Friend visit us to discuss specific things that could add to schemes such as the LIFT project and others because we cannot tolerate the present situation?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, I do not underestimate the issues that must be addressed. There is a shortage of GPs and we are actively trying to recruit more, with some success. I hear what she says about Stoke and I am happy to discuss her worries further. However, we should not lose sight of the important fact that more GPs are working in the NHS than at any time in its history.

Contaminated Blood Products

Michael Connarty: If he will meet the Haemophilia Society to discuss the proposed financial compensation scheme for those who contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood products.

Melanie Johnson: I am meeting my hon. Friend and the Haemophilia Society on 29 October when the ex-gratia payment scheme announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 29 August will be discussed.

Michael Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I put on record what I said when the Secretary of State announced the scheme—that it was a marvellous step forward and a very compassionate move by this Government after 20 years of campaigning. She will recall that we met her predecessor to present the Haemophilia Society's expert working group's analysis of a proper compensation scheme for the harm that is caused by hepatitis C to people with haemophilia. Can she assure me that the structure of any payments will be based not just on a token payment, but on a logical analysis of the loss that is suffered by people, in order to ensure that we do not draw negative comment from the haemophiliac community regarding what should be a very welcome scheme?

Melanie Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the scheme and recognise in return his contribution, along with those of several other hon. Members, to recent campaigns on this front. It is an ex gratia scheme, and we shall work out the details in relation to eligibility, size of awards, payments and so forth. I look forward to a dialogue with my hon. Friend and others on how it should proceed.

Transport (Concessionary Fares)

Joyce Quin: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow pensioners and disabled persons in England to benefit from free travel on buses in current travel concession authority areas and in the vicinity of those areas; and for connected purposes.
	The lobby of Parliament by the National Pensioners Convention last week will, I am sure, have focused the minds of hon. Members on many of the issues that are currently of concern to pensioners. I welcome the new measures that have helped pensioners over recent years—the winter fuel allowance, the increase in pensions, the reduction of VAT on domestic heating, TV licence concessions, and so on. However, one issue on which older people consistently place importance is that of the cost, availability and accessibility of public transport and the link between the affordability of such transport and their quality of life. Indeed, that was recognised in a Government publication stating that
	"transport for older people provides an essential link to friends, family and the wider community—a vital lifeline to maintaining independence."
	The situation in England regarding travel concessions for pensioners and the disabled remains far from satisfactory. The concessions that a person enjoys depend very much on the area in which they live. Unfortunately, England has what amounts to a postcode lottery, with some areas offering free bus and other local travel, some charging a flat rate, some charging a half fare and some applying other arrangements. The Government's approach is to achieve a system of half fares as a minimum throughout England. By contrast, the purpose of the Bill is to achieve the goal of free bus passes throughout England, as is the case in Wales. So far, the devolved territories have a much better record than does England. In addition to the national free bus system in Wales for all pensioners over 60, more generous schemes exist in Scotland and in Northern Ireland than in England. Although it is right that Scotland and Wales can decide such issues for themselves under the devolution settlement, I do not want England to end up as the least enlightened part of the United Kingdom in this respect.
	The ultimate aim of my Bill is nationwide free bus travel for pensioners, but it is worded so as to allow the Government to reach that goal by stages. In the first stage, the travel concession authorities would need to provide free bus travel within their areas. The Bill would provide the framework for those authorities to reach agreement with neighbouring authorities on cross-border travel, with the clear aim of extending the scheme more widely until universal coverage is achieved. My Bill would allow the Government, working with the relevant authorities, to assume the cost of the scheme gradually—although the overall cost of moving towards full coverage straight away is far from inordinate at some £300 million, according to the calculations of Help the Aged.
	The Bill would also, while fully respecting the devolution settlement that the House has approved, enable co-ordination between the national authorities and, indeed, local and regional authorities, if established, to facilitate cross-border arrangements. It is based on concessions being available to pensioners of both sexes at age 60 and would have many benefits additional to those that I described earlier. There would be environmental benefits in encouraging car-owning pensioners to use public transport in preference to private transport, thereby easing congestion and pollution. It would also particularly benefit large numbers of women pensioners who, according to the statistics, are less likely to be car owners and therefore especially dependent on public transport.
	In short, I believe that what I am proposing is a sensible yet radical measure that can bring immediate practical benefits. I am grateful for the assistance in introducing these proposals that I have received from Help the Aged, which, this summer, produced an excellent report on the subject entitled "Fair Fares" in which it called for freedom of travel for older people in the UK. I am also pleased to have the support of pensioners in my own area, particularly from the North East Pensioners Association, who feel strongly that sufficient funding for full fare freedom passes in their area should be provided.This Bill has the important aim of improving the quality of life of some of the least well-off people in our society. It aims to tackle the inequality of provision and the patchiness of current transport concessions that characterise the situation at present. For all those reasons, I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Joyce Quin, Valerie Davey, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Chris Smith, Lynne Jones, Angela Eagle, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Mr. Ian Davidson, Alan Keen, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda and Vera Baird.

Transport (Concessionary Fares)

Joyce Quin accordingly presented a Bill to allow pensioners and disabled persons in England to benefit from free travel on buses in current travel concession authority areas and in the vicinity of those areas; and for connected purposes.: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 159]. Opposition Day

[17th Allotted Day]

Electricity Supply

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
	That this House is greatly concerned about the security of the electricity supply; recognises the crucial importance of reliable supplies to every aspect of domestic and business life, including transport; believes that the Government is neglecting the risk of power cuts this winter and in the longer term; condemns the Government's Energy White Paper for planning to make Britain dependent on gas imports from unreliable sources and for not balancing the need for secure supplies with environmental responsibilities; notes that the consequences of the recent power cut on the London Underground may have been worsened by the inadequacies of the Public Private Partnership negotiated and imposed by the Government; and calls for urgent action to ensure no repetition of the alarming experiences endured by hundreds of thousands of people in London and the South East.
	Nineteen days ago, the first that I knew of the chaos that was about to strike London was when the lights flickered in my office here in Westminster—in the middle of the recess, I should add. Over the next hour or so, hundreds of thousands of Londoners and their neighbours in Kent received an unpleasant reminder that the electricity supply, which we have come to regard in the past 20 years as extremely reliable, is prone to failure. Just eight days later, hundreds of thousands of people in the midlands were similarly warned of the fallibility of the system. Last month, New York and much of north-east America were plunged into total chaos as power failed across a wide area. Last autumn, my constituency and other parts of East Anglia suffered power cuts following storms that brought down power lines and left some homes without electricity for over a week. Disgracefully, on that occasion, the then Minister for Energy and Construction refused to act to help many of the victims of that crisis, leaving them without compensation.
	Only in the past month has the company concerned—EDF—made a belated gesture in the form of payments to the customers that it let down so badly.
	Even though the causes of each failure appear to have been different, this pattern of events is very disturbing, because a continuous, reliable and uninterrupted supply of electricity is essential for domestic and business life. Ensuring that the lights stay on and that power is available to every home and every business is an important duty of Government, alongside defending the borders, policing the streets and ensuring that health care and education are available to all. It is a duty that the Government show every sign of shirking, as Ministers bury their heads firmly in the sand, determined to ignore the problems that loom this winter and beyond, hoping against hope that no major crisis will occur before the next election or, in the case of the Secretary of State, before her free transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Ministry of Defence.
	Even more irresponsible than the Government's attitude to these immediate risks is their approach to Britain's long-term energy needs. No wonder they have been so reluctant to debate the vacuous White Paper. Seldom has a document that was so eagerly anticipated delivered so little and disappeared so quickly—a document notable for its wishful thinking on renewable energy and for its utter disregard of the national interest, as Ministers prepare to make Britain dependent on gas imported from Russia, Algeria and Iran—

Stephen Timms: And Norway.

Tim Yeo: Indeed.
	Let us consider the short-term problem first. There are growing concerns about the risk of power cuts in the next year or two. Professor Ian Fells of the New and Renewable Energy Centre at Newcastle university said:
	"A black-out could happen here . . . I have come to the conclusion that there is a 20 per cent. chance of power cuts this winter . . . In January and February, there are vulnerable weeks when they"—
	the National Grid—
	"might not be able to meet their obligations . . . The amount of spare capacity has been cut back dangerously."
	Generating capacity, according to figures from the House of Commons Library, is almost 15 per cent. less than it was two years ago. The Ofgem fact sheet 31 published last week confirms that the margin of spare capacity is now only 16 per cent., though that will rise to 18 per cent. when the Isle of Grain comes back on stream. Ofgem itself admits that this margin is lower than it has been in the past and a margin of 20 per cent. has previously been considered the minimum acceptable. No wonder the well-respected Dieter Helm, director of Oxford Economic Research Associates and an adviser to the DTI, earlier this month commented:
	"I have always been much more concerned about the conventional bad scenario—when there is a cold spell in winter, and there is a failure at a nuclear power station. Suddenly, there is a shortage and you're getting within capacity boundaries you shouldn't get inside. The risk of an outage is very great indeed."
	David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, warned just after the London power failure what might happen if there was a cold snap and a couple of power stations broke down. He stated:
	"If something like that happened this winter, the prospects would look considerably blacker . . . I don't think you'll find many people in the industry who will tell you now—at the end of August—that they can guarantee there won't be blackouts this winter."
	Jonathan Stern, director at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, points out:
	"Equipment is just getting old and is getting less reliable."
	Despite all these warnings from a variety of authoritative sources, the Government's attitude continues to veer between complacency and carelessness. In the section of the DTI departmental report for 2003 entitled, encouragingly, "Security of Supply", we read:
	"Emergency arrangements for the energy sector continue to be reviewed and updated in the light of lessons learnt from the fuel crisis of 2000 and the events of 11 September 2001."
	Those lessons are being learned somewhat slowly, as the document was published in May 2003. It adds that:
	"the Joint DTI and Ofgem Energy Security of Supply Working Group . . . was established to assess risks to Britain's future gas and electricity supplies: specifically developing indicators for energy security to make information more widely available."
	I am not sure how comforting it is to all the customers who may be horrendously inconvenienced to know that the Government are developing indicators to make information more available. For this Government, indicators seem even lower down the pecking order than the targets to which many Ministers are addicted.
	The report goes on to state that, after the October 2002 storms, the DTI "launched an investigation"—

Patrick McLoughlin: Oh good.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend will like this one. The investigation
	"confirmed that companies which had carried out effective network maintenance and had anticipated the storms well suffered fewer incidents and got customers back on supply more quickly."
	Well, there is a bit of rocket science. The Minister might want to step ahead of his civil servants in taking credit for that. The report goes on to assure us that Ministers are not considering undertaking any activity, but
	"considering along with Ofgem and the industry the best means of ensuring that the resultant recommendations are implemented."
	We do not quite know what those recommendations are.
	Of course, the report was published when Britain still had a full-time Energy Minister. Now, the Minister of State, whom I welcome to his place, has to double up as the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services. The latter is another area that may be claiming some of his attention right now.

Eric Forth: He has to triple up.

Tim Yeo: Exactly.
	As the Minister has so many duties to perform, perhaps it is not so surprising that the written statement about London power cuts that he gave to the House last Monday was pretty thin gruel. However, he said that he was
	"determined to ensure that the necessary lessons are learned."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 10WS.]
	As an action plan for one of the world's greatest capital cities, more than half of whose underground network had to be closed down and where 410,000 electricity customers suffered a power cut, his response fell some way short of what the situation demands. Anxious consumers, and especially those with elderly or disabled people in their families, wonder how they would survive as some of my constituents had to survive last year in coping for eight days without electricity. Single parents out at work wonder what will happen if their children are sent home from schools that are forced to close because of power cuts. No doubt, the Minister's office at the DTI has an emergency generator. Even if it does not, he can always rely on the plentiful supply of hot air from the energy White Paper.

Patrick McLoughlin: Is not my hon. Friend being a little too harsh on the Government? Is he aware that I received from the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), an unusual letter informing me that an energy Bill would be introduced next year and that they were in consultation with the Chief Whip as to whether it would be introduced in January? I thought that that was unusual, as I did not realise that junior Ministers were supposed to tell us what the Queen's Speech would contain. However, we have been told by those Ministers that there will be an energy Bill. The Government are obviously waiting until January as that is when they expect problems to arise. Presumably, that Bill will address all the problems that we are facing.

Tim Yeo: The House and the nation have cause to be grateful to my hon. Friend for revealing that information, of which I was aware. I dare say that the Minister will rely heavily on the forthcoming Bill, just as Ministers relied heavily last winter on the forthcoming energy White Paper as the fount of all future wisdom. No doubt, the Bill will contain the solution to all the problems that I have mentioned.
	I think that we should draw some reassurance from the fact that the Minister, with his triple responsibilities, is sufficiently on the case to make such an announcement. Those of us who can recall the battles for parliamentary time that occur inside government may also wonder whether he is trying to pre-empt some disagreement in the Cabinet about which Bills are included in the Queen's Speech. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us later.

Peter Luff: I am glad that my hon. Friend has broadened the subject of security of supply to cover the regular shortages of power that rural parts of the country, including my constituency, suffer. Will he take the opportunity to remind the Government that the problem must be better controlled, and that that applies not only to the impact on residential customers that he has already rightly highlighted but to the serious impact on the rural economy? Significant firms are often located in remote rural locations and they must have security of supply.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. The issue is extremely serious, especially for smaller businesses, which will not normally have the opportunity to invest in back-up generating capacity. Businesses can suffer not only great inconvenience but harm and severe financial loss when power is cut off. The experience in East Anglia last year was devastating, and my hon. Friend's constituency obviously suffered a similar experience.

Andrew Robathan: The problem does not apply only to rural areas. In Narborough on the edge of Leicester in my constituency, there is a marked deterioration in service. I received a letter last week that complained about the number of power cuts and pointed out that Britain was not Iraq. What responsibilities do the Government have for the deterioration of service and the failure of power supply?

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, to which I hope that the Minister will respond. Perhaps it would not be out of order if I referred to my hon. Friend's close interest in the energy industry. When I visited his constituency earlier this year, I had the opportunity of inspecting a possible site for a wind farm, to which, I believe, my hon. Friend is sympathetic.

Kevin Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question about privatisation? He is right that our generation capacity is becoming aged, but it is not surprising that private companies are unwilling to invest heavily in replacing it. Did the Conservative party consider that when it privatised the generating industry? It is an important point.

Tim Yeo: I thought that it would not be long before the hoary old chestnut of privatisation was mentioned. It would have happened previously had not the Labour Benches been so thinly populated for a debate on an extremely important subject. The disregard of London Labour Members for the devastating effects of last month's power cuts is clearly reflected in the absence of the majority of them. [Hon. Members: "Harry's here."] Of course, there are honourable exceptions. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) is in his place, as he is frequently. However, other London Labour Members are absent and the only explanation I can devise is that the Labour party is in a panic about the Brent, East by-election and that Members have been drafted there.
	Let me deal with the point about privatisation. For almost all industries, privatisation gave us the opportunity to set in law requirements for higher environmental and safety standards than those that existed when they were in public ownership. All the privatised industries yield example after example of higher standards as a direct result of the transfer of enterprises from public to private ownership. Of course, the issues to which the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred were considered when the electricity industry was privatised. Evidence clearly shows that, for example, investment in the national grid has increased substantially following privatisation. In the past, successive Chancellors of the Exchequer were keen to find public expenditure savings. The easy way to do that was through axing the capital programmes for public sector industries. That happily no longer happens. However, the Government's ambivalence about specific energy decisions is having an effect in deterring investment.
	When the Minister replies, he will doubtless point out that a contraction in generating capacity has occurred through the operation of the market in the form of the new electricity trading arrangements. Of course, NETA has achieved a reduction in the prices that are paid to generators. However, it is worth pointing out that consumers have not enjoyed such a big cut in the prices that they pay. Nevertheless, as NETA metamorphoses next year into something that we may call "better" rather than "BETA", that will provide us with an opportunity to examine Ofgem's remit. In the light of the concerns about security of supply that are now more widely expressed than ever, it is not clear that the current remit gives a sufficiently strong market signal to ensure that long-term investment in, for example, gas storage capacity, will happen.
	The Government's inaction in the face of short-term risks is matched by their refusal to rise to the medium and longer-term challenge. We have reached an historic moment in energy policy. For the first time in a generation, Britain faces the prospect of becoming a net importer of gas. In less than a decade, our ability to generate enough electricity to meet the nation's needs will depend on imports. The change is occurring at the very moment when international environmental commitments start to bite more sharply. Given the accumulating evidence of climate change, we should set an example by honouring those commitments. In seven years, half our gas may be imported. By 2020, 90 per cent. is likely to come from abroad, as North sea reserves dwindle.
	Increasing amounts of gas will come from Russia, which has an even bigger customer on its doorstep: Germany. The gas that Russia sends to Britain may travel through a pipeline that runs across Germany. There are no prizes for guessing the country that will have priority if there are problems with supply. The Minister will say, "Never mind. There are other countries that can meet any shortfall." Indeed, there are: pillars of political stability such as Algeria and Iran. I suppose that Ministers have cynically calculated that they will have long left office and that the risks that they run with the security of the British economy and the safety and convenience of the British people do not matter a damn because they will not be around to be held accountable.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that Norway will supply gas to the United Kingdom. I hope that he will not describe Norway as an unstable source. However, the wording of the motion and his point suggest that he believes that there are other sources that we do not propose to access. What are they?

Tim Yeo: I shall deal with the solutions shortly. The arrangements that could make it possible for us to import more gas from Norway are not fully in place, although I hope that they will be. Even when they are, the need to import substantial amounts of gas from other countries will remain.

Kevin Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about our future gas supply, but does he agree that it is time to stop wasting natural gas through using it to generate electricity? We do not need to do that and we should deploy it for domestic use.

Tim Yeo: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's view reflects the Minister's, but I perceive that the point is probably about coal. The dash for gas was driven significantly by environmental considerations. Britain has important commitments, which it needs to honour.
	The irresponsibility of the current generation of Ministers may be cursed by the next generation of citizens. As the Institution of Civil Engineers, in its recent, rather damning report, pointed out:
	"If future gas supplies were interrupted, this country would have major difficulty in keeping the lights on."

Richard Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a political risk? He drew attention to the fact that we would depend on gas that originated from Russia. As he knows, Russia is a member of the United Nations Security Council and was deeply opposed to the war in Iraq. It would be conceivable for Russia to say that if we went ahead with an invasion, it would cut off our gas supply. Does he therefore acknowledge the political as well as the practical risk of interruption of supply?

Tim Yeo: I absolutely acknowledge that. My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that exposing Britain's future energy capability to the whim of Governments in countries such as Russia, with whom we might have profound disagreements about foreign policy in relation to different parts of the world, is a reckless policy that only a grossly irresponsible Government would even contemplate.
	The environmental picture is also worrying. Britain is already in danger of missing the target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2010. Under Labour, carbon dioxide emissions are now actually increasing. The energy industry is central to our progress in honouring this important commitment, but the nuclear power stations—the biggest source of non-carbon-dioxide-emitting electricity generation—are due to be phased out over the next few years. Most will have been decommissioned within a decade, and the Government do not have a clue what to do about this. Their White Paper completely ducked the question of whether the nuclear energy industry should have a future. This indecision means that Britain is likely to lose much of its nuclear expertise quite soon. It also means that meeting our Kyoto targets will become very hard indeed.
	Instead, the Government plan a massive expansion of the electricity to be generated from renewable sources. I must stress that I wholly share the view that every possible effort should be made to promote greater use of renewable energy. At a time when the need for sustainability is widely recognised, the importance of exercising great care over how the world consumes finite resources, including fossil fuels, is obvious. But that need should not involve the unquestioning assumption that renewable energy is always and automatically environmentally superior.
	Wind power is a technology particularly favoured by the Government and, in theory, by the Liberal Democrats. I say "in theory" because, in spite of their slavish endorsement of more wind farms in general, it is almost impossible to find a specific proposal for an onshore wind farm that the Liberal Democrats locally are prepared to support. Furthermore, wind power's lack of reliability means that it will usually require back-up generating capacity, and the remoteness of many offshore wind farms from where the electricity is to be consumed will involve very high transmission costs. The case for renewables must therefore be backed by an honest, hard-headed appraisal of their merits and a careful analysis of their total environmental impact, as well as their effect on electricity prices.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: A large wind farm is about to be sited just offshore near my constituency, and the only people who have opposed that development are the Conservatives. Access to the grid will be approximately half a mile from it. I cannot imagine a more effective use of renewable energy, and I am delighted that the Government have announced an extension of the scheme right along the north-west coast.

Tim Yeo: Our position on renewables is exactly as I have stated. We would like to see greater use of renewables, but we do not approach this in some kind of dreamy fashion, imagining that they will always deliver environmental benefits. In some cases, they will not do so. I am not familiar with the proposal that the hon. Lady mentioned, but I have no doubt that the Conservatives who opposed it locally did so for very good reasons, and could not be accused of hypocrisy in the way that Liberals who oppose wind farms locally can, because their whole energy policy is based on a massive and unquestioned expansion of wind power.
	We have called this debate for two reasons. The first is to highlight the need for action now, to reduce the risk of repeated power failures in the coming winters. The second is to expose the risks that Ministers are running with Britain's longer-term energy policy. We want to find out what the Minister intends to do about these issues.

Andrew Stunell: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to be giving an undertaking that local Conservatives will not oppose nuclear power generators when they are proposed in their areas? That seemed to be the logic behind the point that he was making.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to be given the opportunity to repeat for the third time our position on these issues. It obviously requires quite a lot of repetition for the Liberal Democrats to understand it. When a party says that the energy problems of Britain can be solved only by a massive expansion of wind power, but opposes every single measure designed to achieve that national objective, that party is not fit to be considered seriously as a political organisation. That is the position of the Liberal Democrats on energy.
	The Conservatives believe in diverse sources of energy supply. We believe that there is a role for renewables, but that it needs to be justified on environmental and economic grounds. We also believe that there is a role for gas, and that it will involve some imports. There is a role for coal, and, in my view, almost certainly a role for nuclear power. We are not slavishly saying that all energy has to be generated from a single source. Because of that, there will be some areas in which it is suitable to invest in new power stations—of whatever sort—and some in which it is not. I am confident that the attitude of Conservatives in those areas, whether they are for or against the proposals, will be honest, will respect local concerns and will be entirely consistent—unlike that of the Liberal Democrats—with the position that their party takes from the Front Bench in the House.

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend has already referred to my enthusiasm for renewable energy. Does he agree that the Government's target of 10 per cent. of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2010, as stated in their manifesto in 2001, is almost impossible to meet?

Tim Yeo: That is certainly my view, and the view of almost any objective analyst with a serious record of studying the industry. The Government go further than that target, however. They also want 20 per cent. of electricity generation to come from renewable sources by 2020. In case the Minister does not wish to refer to this later, I should like to point out that he recently said of the 20 per cent. figure that it was not some pie-in-the-sky figure, but a realistic expectation.

Eric Forth: Or target.

Tim Yeo: Indeed.
	I hope that the Minister will now explain to the House what practical steps the Government are proposing to address the risk of repeated power failures. Will he increase the mandatory compensation payable by the industry to the victims of power cuts? Will he tighten up the conditions under which such compensation becomes payable? Does he agree that energy efficiency could still make a much bigger contribution to alleviating the security problems that we have been debating? Will he review the remit of Ofgem to see whether changes are needed to give greater emphasis to ensuring security of supply? Does he recognise that there are serious flaws in the Government's White Paper? Will he remedy them by publishing as soon as possible—ahead of the Bill that we have been promised in the next parliamentary Session—a revised version of that White Paper that addresses the issues of excessive dependence on gas imports, unrealistic expectations for renewables and the damaging indecision over the future of nuclear power?
	By their nature, decisions about electricity generation are very long term. Enormous lead times are involved in planning, building and bringing on stream new capacity of any kind. It is not good enough to say that these decisions can be put off until the next Parliament. Dither and delay put British consumers at risk, harm the environment and increase the cost of the measures that will eventually have to be taken. That is a particular anxiety in the light of reports this week that more and more consumers are having trouble paying their bills.
	The Minister must know that the figures are not going to change. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not going to return from her fruitless sojourn in the sun like a fairy godmother with a magic wand. The Minister should face up to his responsibilities even if his colleagues are unable to do so. Families, businesses and commuters are all looking to him for answers. Every man, woman and child is a consumer of electricity every day of their lives. What the Minister tells the House today, and what he decides to do or not to do tomorrow, will affect the comfort and safety of every citizen. I commend this motion to the House.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"regrets the problems that have recently occurred on the National Grid and the disruption that was caused particularly to transport services; further notes that the report published by the National Grid last Wednesday shows that the problem was not caused by under-investment on the network, shortage of capacity or its contractual relationship with any of its customers but rather by a local transmission failure; notes that security of supply is one of the key responsibilities of the regulator, that Ofgem is considering the incident in the light of the National Grid's licence obligations and will be reporting at the end of September; and further notes that the Government's engineering inspectorate will also be conducting its own investigation."
	I welcome the opportunity that this debate gives us. As the House will know, on 14 August a large area of eastern Canada and the north-east United States, including New York, was hit by cascading power cuts. Sixty million people were affected, trains and subways in New York ground to a halt, thousands were left stranded, and some people slept in the streets. No one expected that to happen here, but in the early evening on 28 August electricity supply was lost to parts of south-east London and Kent. What followed was not comparable with the failures in the United States. Here, power was restored everywhere within 41 minutes, but there were serious consequences: disruption to overground and underground rail in particular, but other disruption as well. I agree that it was a powerful reminder of how dependent we all are on electricity. That is why we placed maintaining the reliability of energy supplies at the heart of the energy White Paper in February. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) made some disparaging comments about the White Paper, but people in the energy industry to whom I have spoken have warmly welcomed it, not least for the coherence of its analysis and the fact that it has provided us with a coherent energy policy, which the party that he represented in government never did.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am disturbed by the Minister's comment that there was no comparison with what happened in the United States. He went on to say that power was restored within 41 minutes. Does he accept that 41 minutes was a long time for people who were travelling on the underground? The power was not returned to the underground within 41 minutes, because the emergency procedures had to be carried out. The Minister's complacent attitude is not acceptable.

Stephen Timms: There will be no complacency in what I have to say to the House. Like the Minister of State, Department for Transport, I shall deal in particular with what happened to the underground. However, to begin with it is important that we focus on the energy issues—specifically electricity.
	Supplies were restored within 41 minutes. Nevertheless, it is essential that maintaining the reliability of energy supplies be at the heart of our energy policy. It was one of the four key goals at the heart of the White Paper published in February. The other goals were: promoting competitive markets; ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated; and putting the United Kingdom on a path towards a reduction in CO2 emissions of 60 per cent. below current levels by 2050.
	Since the publication of the White Paper, much attention has understandably been placed on the fourth of those goals. However, all four of them need to be achieved in order to deliver our aims. I welcome the opportunity that this debate gives us to focus specifically on electricity reliability and supply security.
	Competitive and transparent markets are best for maintaining security. We need diversity across the energy supply chain, a mix of fuel types at the generation end of the chain, and diversity in terms of where fuels come from and how they are transported. We need a robust infrastructure. One of the few points that the hon. Member for South Suffolk made with which I agreed was about the need to reduce overall demand for energy through increased energy efficiency, which is another important part of the strategy. We need short-term contingency plans to protect against unforeseen events, and long-term plans to cope with the challenges presented by the change in our fuel mix in the years ahead and to meet our environmental objectives.
	Our role is to establish a competitive marketplace, including through good international relations within which liberalised markets will deliver energy reliability. When short-term problems arise, we will, with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets where appropriate, evaluate what has happened and take action accordingly. At the moment, about 38 per cent. of our electricity is produced from gas. We need flexibility in the gas system to cope with shocks. That is true today while we produce more gas than we consume, and it will be true in the future as we import gas.
	Gas storage can help, and so will importing and storing liquefied natural gas and increasing our connections with north-west Europe, where there are large gas storage facilities. There is an encouraging list of major infrastructure projects being implemented by the industry. Growing interdependence means that reliable energy supplies will become an important part of our foreign policy. We need to have diverse sources of supply and a diversity of fuels.

Kevin Hughes: I agree and accept what the Minister says about diversity of supply, because it is good sense. This island is built on coal and surrounded by natural gas and oil, so why does the White Paper take us towards being a net importer of energy? That bit of the White Paper puzzled me and makes no sense to me at all.

Stephen Timms: Gas and oil production from the North sea is reaching a plateau, and it will not grow in the future at the rate at which demand will grow, so we will need to import those fuels. I can see where my hon. Friend's argument is going. I think there is a role for coal in the future, and I shall refer to some of the issues that we need to address to ensure that coal can play its role. As he well knows, there are some big, technological challenges ahead. For the medium term at least, gas will be dominant in electricity generation.
	The White Paper set out a vision of a future in which renewables will contribute 20 per cent. to our energy mix by 2020. That is our aim, and the hon. Member for South Suffolk referred to that. Some renewables, such as wind power, will be intermittent, but not all of them. Diversity in renewable fuel sources, such as in the location of wind farms, will allow us to manage the risk of intermittency—for example, when the wind does not blow. Technological developments make it likely that the costs of managing that intermittency will fall substantially by 2020. There needs to be a major programme between now and then to achieve the aspiration that we have set.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk referred to the decline of nuclear power. His argument was that if we really want low carbon emissions and security of supply, new nuclear capacity is the only solution. I am not sure that that is the official policy of his party, but I think that it was at least his own position. The truth is that at the moment new nuclear build is uneconomic, and the vital issue of nuclear waste still needs to be resolved. As we set out in the White Paper, it is right to concentrate our efforts on energy efficiency and renewables for the next few years while ensuring—as we are doing—that we keep the nuclear option open for the period beyond that.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister made the sweeping statement that new investment in nuclear energy is uneconomic. How can anyone proposing to make that investment possibly know what the cost will be when the Government have not even begun to put a price on the pollution that comes from nuclear-generated electricity set alongside the benefits that should come from electricity that is carbon- free? Until the Government establish that framework, his remark is not testable, and he could not expect anyone to invest in the industry.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman has helpfully set out the difficulties and uncertainties, not about Government policy but about the issues around nuclear waste that still have to be resolved. For that reason and others, this is not a good climate for people proposing to invest in nuclear energy. Our view is that we need to keep that option open for the longer term, because at some stage it may become clear that we need new nuclear capacity, but that is not the position at the moment.

Richard Ottaway: The Minister referred to the uneconomic nature of the nuclear industry. How does he know whether it is economic or uneconomic? In 10, 15 or 20 years, the price levels could be very different. He must have some projections of prices in the future. All the nuclear options could turn out to be economic in the long term.

Stephen Timms: Those are precisely the uncertainties that face anyone with a proposal for investment in new nuclear capacity at this stage. Some investment is being made, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty about the economics of nuclear energy, particularly given the nuclear waste issue. I therefore do not consider this a good time to look seriously at such investments, although the position may change.
	Many people are concerned about the decline in coal-fired generation. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), there can be no doubt of the importance of coal in the generation mix, but I know my hon. Friend will agree that coal generation must be low-carbon if it is to have a long-term future. That is why we are investigating in depth the feasibility of carbon capture and storage, and considering the possibilities of international collaboration to support the substantial investment that it will require.

Kevin Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new integrated gasification combined cycle technology—as he knows, there is a proposal for the building of a power plant of that type in my constituency—provides the best way of using coal to generate electricity without the toxic emissions normally associated with that process?

Stephen Timms: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in that project and that technology, and I agree that there is some promising technology ahead of us, but I think it will be some time before we can say that we have the necessary means to deliver the low-carbon coal-fired generation that will in due course be part of our mix.
	Forecasts for generating capacity margins are lower for the coming winter. Total generating capacity is currently expected to exceed forecast peak demand by about 18 per cent. this year—as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said—compared with figures in the low 20s in recent years. There is already evidence, however, that, as would be expected, the markets are responding to the higher price signals. That, and the signals themselves, is why the indicators from the joint energy security of supply working group are so important.
	Forward prices for peak power this winter are 60 per cent. higher than they were in early August last year. Higher prices may well encourage some currently mothballed plants to return to the system, and there is plenty of time for that. As the hon. Gentleman said, one generator has already announced the return of a mothballed plant on the Isle of Grain for the coming winter, and there may well be more. I expect the market to deliver adequate generating capacity this winter. With Ofgem, we will continue to monitor the situation closely through the joint energy security of supply working group. The group will ensure that the information is disseminated to the market so that participants can respond appropriately. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand the role of the group, but markets need information to function well.
	Both the Secretary of State and the regulator, Ofgem, have duties in law to ensure that reasonable demands for electricity and gas are met. Those duties are carried forward into conditions in the licences held by energy providers, and we look to Ofgem to enforce the conditions consistent with its duties. We also need the right regulatory environment to encourage the market to invest in the right infrastructure. The infrastructure will have to change in the years ahead.
	National Grid Transco already has an incentive, through its licence conditions, to invest in the transmission network. It has assured me firmly that under-investment was not a cause of the recent power cut, and its report seems to confirm that. Ofgem will work with National Grid and the distribution companies through the forthcoming price control reviews to ensure that companies are given incentives to invest appropriately in our networks, and to invest in a way that will specifically support the more decentralised generation patterns of coming decades.
	The industry has a good record. We are committed to maintaining energy security. The failure of 28 August, however, serves as a reminder that risks to such complex systems cannot be entirely eliminated. On 10 September, National Grid Transco published its report on what happened. I am grateful for its speed, and the report is in the Library of the House.
	Normal demands of about 1,100 MW are drawn from the national grid by EDF Energy in south London to supply domestic customers, the underground and other large users, including Network Rail. Four national grid sub-stations were involved. On 28 August scheduled maintenance was under way on one circuit between two of them, Wimbledon and New Cross, and on another between the other two, Littlebrook and Hurst. That level of maintenance is usual during the summer, when demand for electricity is generally lower, and the arrangement had been agreed with EDF Energy well in advance, in July last year.
	The sequence of events began at 6.11 pm. Engineers at the electricity national control centre received an alarm indicating that a transformer at the Hurst sub-station was in distress and could fail, potentially with significant safety and environmental impacts. It was what is known as a Buchholz alarm, showing that gas had accumulated in the oil inside the equipment, causing the risk of a major failure. National Grid has some 1,000 transformers with associated equipment, and an average of 13 Buchholz alarms are received each year.
	The control centre contacted EDF Energy and asked it to disconnect the distribution system from the transformer. As is normal practice, national control initiated a switching sequence to disconnect the transformer from the system. That left supplies temporarily dependent on a single transmission circuit from Wimbledon to New Cross and Hurst. Under national grid procedures, a Buchholz alarm is serious enough to warrant the isolation of equipment, and reduced security is acceptable for what is known as switching time—a period of five to 10 minutes during which the transmission system is rearranged by the connection and disconnection of circuits so that the affected equipment can be taken out of service.
	The switching sequence to remove the transformer began at 6.20 pm, disconnecting Hurst sub-station from Littlebrook. That enabled the transformer to be shut down safely with the alarm, but left Hurst supplied only from Wimbledon via New Cross. Unexpectedly, a few seconds after the switching, the automatic protection equipment on the number two circuit from Wimbledon to New Cross operated, interpreting the change of power flows due to the switching as a fault.
	On the national grid there are some 43,000 pieces of automatic protection equipment, each with its individual settings to meet local requirements. The automatic protection relay disconnected the circuit from Wimbledon to New Cross. That disconnected New Cross, Hurst and part of Wimbledon from the rest of the transmission system, causing the loss of supply. Some 724 MW were lost, about 20 per cent. of London's supplies at the time, and 410,000 of EDF Energy's customers were affected.

Harry Cohen: There was a good deal of distress among Londoners caught up in the power cut. The Minister will know that the London underground had its own generating supply at Lots road for 100 years. When it was closed, assurances were given that the underground's supply would be secure. The Minister tells us that some 43,000 automatic mechanisms could turn off the secondary supply on which the underground now relies. Is there not a case for returning to the argument that the underground should have its own back-up supply in case the national grid fails? If that is deemed necessary, will the Government invest in it?

Stephen Timms: I agree about the distress and, at the least, great inconvenience caused to a large number of Londoners that night. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will deal shortly with the question of the resilience of the underground's power supply.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that some emergency capacity is still retained at Lots road for running the underground in the event of a failure, which would allow the escalators and lights to work and the trains to move rather slowly, and that this capacity continues to be maintained?

Stephen Timms: I shall talk more about that in a moment. The back-up supply is now at Greenwich, not Lots road, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that some back-up for the underground is available.
	Returning to the night of 28 August, an incorrect protection relay—1-amp rated, rather than 5-amp rated—had been installed at Wimbledon when the old equipment was replaced in 2001, which was the immediate cause of the loss of supply. Although all supplies were restored in 41 minutes, the consequences, as a number of Members have rightly pointed out, lasted a great deal longer. In particular, there was an immediate loss of supply to some 60 per cent. of the underground, which in effect brought the whole system to a halt. Each London Underground control centre lost the ability to see diagrams of the position of trains for the duration of the failure, so they began to speak to train operators in order to collate positions manually. Some 57 trains had stopped inside tunnels, eight of which—carrying 1,200 passengers between them—were evacuated via the tracks.
	Each evacuation, I am pleased to say, was carried out according to standard arrangements, but that of course meant that the underground network could not be switched back on until it was absolutely certain that all passengers and staff were safely away from the tracks. There was no risk to passenger safety, and the whole House will want to express thanks to all those involved for their calm and safe response. Although the emergency back-up power supply available to the underground, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has just referred, is not of a sufficiently high capacity to keep the trains moving, it did ensure that emergency lighting was available at all the affected stations, and that the evacuation could be carried out safely.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says about the safe execution of the procedures provided by London Underground, but surely one of the main issues is the time that it took to bring the service up to speed. Is he satisfied that the procedures provided by London Underground are effective, as well as efficient?

Stephen Timms: They were certainly safe, which was the overriding priority. I shall discuss in a moment the wider question of whether they were necessarily the most appropriate action to take on the day, but we need to pay tribute to the fact that the operation was conducted safely, and that the procedures worked well in terms of protecting passenger safety.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I will give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will just bear with me. I should make it clear that the failure in London had nothing to do with any lack of generation capacity. The National Grid Company pointed out that since 1990 it has invested more than £3.5 billion in nominal terms in the system—a significantly higher rate than before. Its performance, measured against the security and quality standards required by its licence, is reported annually to Ofgem and made public. Performance has improved since 1990, and the level of customer demand lost has been extremely low. It can justly point to a good record in terms of meeting the demands made of it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) asked a question that many people ask: why does the London underground no longer have its own power supply, following the closure of Lots road last year? The underground consumes half of 1 per cent. of total UK power consumption. In fact, before Lots road was closed last November, it had been supplying no more that 60 per cent. of the underground's power for some time. Power for the underground has been bought in from the national grid for 20 years or more.
	The Lots road power station opened in 1905. At the time, it was the biggest in the world, and when it closed it was the oldest working power station in the world—reflecting the previous Government's woeful failure in terms of investing in the London underground. London Underground had considered options for upgrading it or replacing it since the mid-1980s. It was finally decided— before 1997, in fact—to close Lots road and buy in power from the national grid through the private finance initiative deal. It is worth noting that between 1969 and 2002, Lots road failed 13 times, and the national grid supply to the underground just twice.
	London Underground will of course be looking very carefully at how its power PFI worked and what lessons need to be learned. In addition, as part of the investigation that I have announced, the Department of Trade and Industry's engineering inspectorate will look at the London underground's power supplies, and may make recommendations if that seems appropriate in the light of that investigation.
	The incident was the biggest loss of supply from the national grid for more than 10 years. I announced on 10 September that the Government and Ofgem will undertake further investigations into the failure's causes and impact. We are determined to learn any lessons that might help us to prevent such distress in future. The joint Ofgem-DTI investigation and the engineering inspectorate's investigation will also look into the power cuts that took place in the west midlands on 5 September, when a loss of power occurred at 10.10 am at the national grid's Hams Hall sub-station, in Coleshill. On that occasion, full power was restored by 10.52, but some 200,000 customers were affected. On that day, I registered my deep concern with the National Grid Company at this second power cut, coming as it did so shortly after the power cuts in London. I am expecting a report from it on that incident shortly.

Patrick Mercer: The Minister will be aware that during the weekend before last, the Osiris II exercise, in which a terrorist strike on the Bank tube was simulated, took place. That happened only a few days after the incident that the Minister describes, yet very little reference was made to that real incident that occurred on 28 August; indeed, such reference was passing and jocular. Can the Minister confirm that lessons from that real incident were passed on to inform the exercise? I saw very little sign of that.

Stephen Timms: Some of those lessons will take time to crystallise, but it is clear that we will learn all the lessons from what happened on 28 August, for the future of the underground. It is right to draw attention to some of the questions that need to be answered. For example—this question has already been hinted at—was evacuation the right decision for some trains? Were the drivers kept sufficiently well informed? Was there adequate communication between staff and passengers? All of those questions need to be asked and answered. As I said, we need to look at whether the underground has adequate power security, but the Government's London resilience team, working closely with the office of the London Mayor and others, will consider all those issues. Indeed, the London resilience forum deals with all these matters, including the simulated terrorist attack to which the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) referred. It has carried out a lot of work on contingency planning for London, and that work will continue.

Tim Collins: As the Minister knows, the question of whether it was appropriate to evacuate some of the trains has attracted enormous interest in London, given the resulting delays in restoring the service, to which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) referred. Will he make it clear whether, under the new arrangements, the final decision on such matters rests with the Government or with the London Mayor?

Stephen Timms: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Mayor now has responsibility for the underground. As I understand the procedure, however, it is possible for individual drivers to decide whether evacuation is necessary, in the interests of the passengers of the train concerned; indeed, it is right that drivers be able to make that decision. Whether everything worked exactly as it should have on 28 August is a question that needs to be addressed.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend referred to the national grid and the failings in the west midlands, but does he agree that one significant problem is that that national grid interfaces with an enormous number of electricity suppliers? There is a desperate need to ensure that the standards set by each of those suppliers are commensurate with the standards of the national grid. Sometimes it is labelled as the bad party, but in fact it is generating the supply and passing it on to people who are not capable of managing it adequately.

Stephen Timms: By and large they are capable of that, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the investigations conducted by Ofgem, the Department of Trade and Industry and the engineering inspectorate need to examine the whole system, including the distribution systems as well as the national grid. The engineering inspectorate investigation will take account of other transmission failures over the last five years as well, and will examine precisely the point that my hon. Friend has made—how the national grid interacted with its customers and what lessons need to be learned.
	Ofgem will formally decide by the end of the year whether any of the companies were in breach of their licence obligations and, if they were, what action should be taken. I welcome the assurance that the national grid will further review its systems and procedures, and will work closely with other operators to improve overall supply, particularly to city centres and transport systems. It is right to highlight the importance of that. I am pleased that the Trade and Industry Committee will investigate the resilience of the national grid, and my Department looks forward to contributing to that work. Quite rightly, therefore, there will be a good deal of follow-up to ensure that lessons are learned from what happened.
	In conclusion, I want to reiterate our central White Paper commitment to maintaining the reliability of our energy supplies. That is an absolutely central priority for the Government and central to our energy policy. Together with the work that we are undertaking in the immediate aftermath of the recent failures, I am confident that we shall be able to minimise the risk of similar future failures.

Andrew Stunell: We certainly welcome the debate, but the motion before us is rather rambling and some of the presentations that we have heard were rather dramatically over the top. It is an extraordinary leap from an undersized fuse in Wimbledon to the end of civilisation as we know it, which is pretty much what Opposition Front Benchers have put to us today. There are some important issues and I hope that, despite the soothing and comforting words of the Minister, his Department will take some important questions away after the debate and take any necessary action that is required.
	On security of supply, there are questions about generating capacity, about transmission distribution capacity and about supply capacity. I was a bit surprised that the Conservatives confined themselves to the case of the underground because, during the last major international at Twickenham, the overground suffered parallel failures on account of underinvestment in the electricity supply to the rail network in the south-west of London. Ensuring that investment keeps pace with demand becomes a more serious problem the further down the pyramid one goes from generation to supply.
	I hope that we can examine the problems more rationally than the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) did. The Ofgem briefing paper, which hon. Members have received, is clear and straightforward, so it is sensible to pay some attention to it. It makes the point that the predicted surplus over peak demand of 16 per cent. will rise to 18 per cent. when the Isle of Grain comes on stream later this year. That estimate does not take account of the interconnector with France, from which another 2,000 MW can be expected, or of plant that is more deeply mothballed, which can come on stream comparatively easily to the tune of another 7,500 MW.
	I wonder whether Conservative Front Benchers have been taken in on the generation issue by their own spin doctor, because the leading exponent of the view that we are about to run out of generating capacity is Sir Bernard Ingham and his nuclear power forum. Just because they were taken in once when he was operating for Mrs. Thatcher, the Conservatives should not be taken in twice now that he is working for the nuclear industry.
	On transmission capacity, the Minister has quite properly drawn attention to the fact that National Grid Transco has a very good record of meeting demand. I believe that the figure is 99.995 per cent. or better each year, so it seems unnecessary to spend too much time worrying about transmission security of supply.
	That brings us to the bottom level and final stage of supply to individual users and consumers. We have heard about the dodgy fuse and I guess that, when the final report is produced, we will know more about it. We have heard a little about the London underground back-up system, which was recently handed over to the private sector and did not kick in as planned. One of the companies mentioned is Electricité de France, which is a supplier and distributor of electricity in London. I wonder once again about the wisdom of the Conservatives complaining about the system, when EDF is wholly owned by the French Government and operates as a result of the privatisation of the electricity industry that they commissioned. It is one of the paradoxes of energy debates in the House that we can hold our debates only because the lights are on, and the profits from the lights running in the House go straight to the French Ministry of Finance as a direct result of the Conservative privatisation of the industry.

Richard Ottaway: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrat party policy is to nationalise the electricity sector?

Andrew Stunell: No, I cannot confirm that. The Conservatives have already produced several non-sequiturs in the debate, one of which I have already illustrated and another of which is illustrated by that intervention. I would simply describe the Conservative approach to the electricity industry as bonkers.
	Let us reflect on the serious question about security of supply, which is what happens in the long term. Conservative Front Benchers mentioned the risk of power cuts this winter and in the longer term, so we need to consider the broader issues of substance. One important argument is that the UK economy and its energy industry will be weak in future because we will have to import energy, but that rather overlooks the fact that there are currently only two economies in the world that do not—the United Kingdom and Canada. All the others are net importers of energy, in some cases—the United States and Japan, for instance—on a huge scale. We have a diversity of markets from which to buy.
	I was interested to hear the argument that the Russians might seek to blackmail us over Iraq. Of course, the country with the largest dependence of all on Russian supply of energy is Poland, yet Poland willingly and freely joined in the Iraq adventure. Incidentally, I would not have done so, but there is no evidence that any political pressure was imposed. Indeed, the Russians greatly want the money. The idea that Norway is some sort of rogue state that might hold us to ransom is fanciful beyond belief. It also completely overlooks the possibility of liquid natural gas supplies coming to this country from west Africa, south America and a wide range of other international sources.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: As this seems to be a day for non-sequiturs, could the hon. Gentleman make the Liberal Democrats' position clear? He seemed to suggest that it was all right to have the National Grid generating electricity as a private company, but not all right for that to happen lower down the chain of suppliers. Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of private companies being in control of generation or against? Are they in favour of the French being able to control our major system or against the French having control of the movement of gas throughout their company's territory? I am not clear on those points.

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Lady would be much clearer if she read my book on the topic or if she tuned into the debate on energy policy at our conference next week. I do not wish to be ruled out of order, so I shall just say that we accept the realities of a national and international liberalised energy market. I simply point out to the House that it is extraordinary that the Conservatives are expressing doubts about the ability of that liberalised market to deliver a sustainable energy policy for this country. The hon. Lady may take a different view, and I am sure that she will discuss that with her Front-Bench colleagues in due course.
	As for prices, we are all quietly admitting that energy prices will increase in this country over the next decade or two. If we are to achieve our aims, especially in conservation and efficiency, those price signals are important. However, the suggestion that we might be held to ransom by outside suppliers is clearly not tenable. One need only consider the 30 or 40-year history of OPEC to see that stability is likely to be achieved in the longer term. I also refer the House to Ofgem's view, which is that there is no problem with supply of fuel to the UK energy market.
	At first, we wondered why the Conservatives had chosen to focus on the issues in their motion rather than on what we saw as some of the more fundamental questions—such as the delay in the Government introducing its policy, as opposed to a White Paper. Where is the legislation? I was pleased to hear the Conservatives' spokesman say that they wanted to see legislation in the Queen's Speech and that is a rare point on which I can agree with them.
	We thought that the Conservatives would raise the fact that the Government are now struggling along with their fifth part-time energy Minister, which shows a lack of commitment to this important area. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will take away from the debate a request that he be divested of some of his other arduous duties, so that he may focus effectively on these matters. Or perhaps the Conservatives might have addressed the lack of evidence that the UK is making progress towards its Kyoto targets—emissions of greenhouse gases are rising again—and the fact that we still have no clear long-term plans for the 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. However, then we realised that the Tories have no energy policy and have undergone an even more rapid rotation of energy spokesmen.
	The Conservatives claimed that they still regard the environment as important. If that is the case, I hope that they will take a second look at what they are saying about the ability of renewables to deliver and the impact that conservation and efficiency can make on meeting demand in the future. We are clear that we need a diversity of fuels, including renewables. We are also clear that an improvement in security is obtained from dispersed sources and comparatively smaller generation sources. One should not have all one's eggs in one basket. Conservatives ask how we can tell whether investment in gas or in nuclear is best, but it is not for this House to decide that. It is for investors and the promoters of projects to decide that, and they have decided it. They have decided that gas is a more profitable and certain vehicle for investment than nuclear power.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has said that he would like to see a greater diversity of supply, and we agree. He also said that he would like to see small suppliers generating electricity, but that would of course result in price rises. To what extent would the Liberal Democrats be prepared to tolerate price rises?

Andrew Stunell: The words "of course" are the give-away in that question. Smaller does not always mean more expensive. Indeed, in the case of wind generation, which is now competitive on the market with its 3 MW units, it is not the case that smaller means more expensive. People are investing in those technologies because they can now compete in the market.

Crispin Blunt: Wind energy is only competitive now because of the existence of the renewables obligation, which provides some 70 per cent. of its income as subsidy, with only 30 per cent. coming from the price of the electricity generated. That cannot be the hon. Gentleman's definition of economic.

Andrew Stunell: If we were in a completely deregulated market, we would have 100 per cent. gas generation. But we are not, and no one in the House believes that we should be. In a regulated market, it is appropriate that regulation should relate primarily to the need to meet environmental guidelines. I do not have a problem with a regulated energy market, and I did not think that the Conservatives did either. Throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, they supported a regulated market that favoured the nuclear industry, so it should not be too much of a problem for me to support one that favours renewables.
	If we want 2,000 MW of electricity generating capacity in this country, the cheapest way to provide it is by saving that energy through conservation and efficiency. That is cheaper than gas, nuclear power or renewables. The problem is that in a market environment it is difficult to trigger investment in those areas, because conservation means using less product and therefore provides less cash for those who make the investment. The Minister needs to invest much thinking time and some real policy development in ensuring that conservation and efficiency play a full part, as they can, in a regulated market. It is also necessary to check the maintenance and manpower shortcuts that may be the result of a privatised process. Again, the role of the regulator is vital.
	The Liberal Democrats want the Minister to say clearly that the Queen's Speech will contain an energy Bill that goes beyond waste disposal for nuclear power; to give a full-time commitment to this important topic; and to do more long-term thinking, with less short-term panic.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am thoroughly enjoying this debate because it puts me in a unique position. I have been a Member of Parliament for a long time and this is the first time that I have been in total agreement with Opposition Front Benchers. Today, comprehensively, exhaustively and—presumably—after much work, the Conservatives have rubbished the private electricity industry. They have made it clear that that industry has failed in its duty to the nation and is incapable of carrying out the job that it was privatised to do. That seems a very interesting argument, and one with which I rather agree. I hardly like to say this in public, as I know that it will embarrass the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), but I am at one with him when he argues that privatisation of electricity generation has led to a total failure of efficiency. I hope that it will not damage the hon. Gentleman's career if I say that I parted from him only when he appeared to suggest that we should nevertheless continue along that line of confusion.
	I was only slightly more pleased with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who seemed to be even more confused than me. Even so, it is important that contributions be made to the debate not only by those of my colleagues who, through training, background and effort, have become experts in electricity generation, but by people who, like me, know a little about the use of public services and who are worried about the future of the London underground.
	It may come as a shock to Members of Parliament, who like to demonstrate expertise in esoteric and important matters, but the general public are singularly uninterested in the question of who generates electricity. People are interested in what causes them to have to use a form of public transport that broke down on one of the hottest days of the year. The underground system is more than 100 years old, and it can cause considerable discomfort for those trapped in it. As a child, I was trapped in an underground train during an air raid. I have never forgotten the experience. In fact, I suspect that it engendered in me a mild form of claustrophobia, which I never accept or admit.
	Our nation sits on a very efficient and basic form of fuel, and seeks to develop industry at every level. How can such a nation find itself in a position where a resource as important and basic as electricity can fail? When that happens, many people are inconvenienced, and it costs industry and individuals a very great deal of money.
	I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that the Government are investigating the matter. He said that a working party had been set up, that the engineers will be called in, and that different aspects of the problem will be examined. However, I want him to give clearer support for a number of difficult propositions. The phrase "non-sequitur" has been used generously today, and I shall continue that happy trend. I believe that the electricity generation industry in this country, even though it generates more electricity than in the period after the war, is not capable of leaving itself a sufficient cushion of safety so that it can support essential systems.
	I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the account given by my hon. Friend the Minister, but how is it that the failure of a small part of the system—perhaps even something as simple as the use of the wrong fuse—can generate total chaos? In the past, the underground system accepted the need for a back-up system, so how is it possible that only a very tiny part of an alternative is now provided for? Hospitals in the national health service accept their responsibility to provide alternative forms of electricity generation if the main systems fail. Why should not the same obligation be clear in respect of the underground?
	When the Lots road facility closed, did the underground management give generalised assurances that all would be well in the future, secure in the knowledge that the national grid very rarely failed? The last really bad series of power cuts happened just after the war, when there was considerable difficulty in generating sufficient supplies. This country needed a co-ordinated and nationalised—as it was called—industry precisely because the private sector was not capable of doing the job. As far as I can see, the private sector has given no indication that it is capable of doing the job now. We need more answers.
	The Minister has been very open and straightforward this afternoon. He has told us what he is trying to do, how he is trying to do it and where the information will come from. It is unfair to ask him more questions, but this summer's incident was so major that it must give us pause. Large numbers of people were being carried on the underground system at the time in question. I am worried that many passengers were not evacuated for some time and that they were not given the information that they needed. Many staff had no idea what managers were doing to provide emergency organisation, and it seems that the underground's information about its own system was insufficient.
	No one doubts the commitment of railway personnel in an emergency, or the adequacy of their training. Without the staff's discipline and common sense, what happened could have been much worse. The fact that so many people were evacuated safely and in such a disciplined manner is a great tribute to the sense of the general public and to the way in which railway men and women respond under pressure of an emergency.
	However, when the trains stopped, operating room staff could no longer see where the trains were. It seems that no alternative system exists to allow them to identify the location of the trains effectively and quickly. When the power came back, they were not able to determine whether people were still in the tunnels—whether they were being evacuated quickly or were still moving down the side of the track. In the latter case, it would have been impossible to restart the system. As a result, the delay was much longer than it need have been.
	London Underground must be asked several questions. Why does it not have a back-up system that would allow it to assume, automatically, that trains could remain in operation? Such a system would mean that no interruption would last long, and that trains could at the very least move safely out of the tunnels.
	Drivers have responsibility for the safety of passengers on the train. Why were they not speedily given sufficient accurate information about the other decisions that were being taken? Why was it not possible for control room staff to see easily what was happening in the tunnels? Is there no automatic emergency lighting system? That would at least have given some indication of where people were moving and of the dangers that could have arisen had the electricity system been switched back on.
	Why did it take so long for the management of the underground to take back complete control of the system? If the problem arises again, what sense of urgency is being engendered to ensure that, between them, the privatised companies and London Underground will be able to know with accuracy where people are, how they can be evacuated, and how long such an action will take?
	With so many people being taken off trains in the dark, it is a minor miracle that no one suffered an accident. When large numbers of people are being moved around underground, there is no guarantee that all will be safe. For example, the step down from a train to the level of the rails is a considerable one. The evacuation could have been very dangerous. That is unacceptable: as I said, it is a minor miracle that no one was hurt.
	A number of questions have been thrown up by this debate, but the problems go further, as the overground rail system was also disrupted. I sometimes admire the phlegm and self-control of the general public in this country. If people stampeded every time they were inconvenienced by a major incident, we should be in considerable difficulty, but there are so many problems with the railway system that people are in a miasma, almost accepting that such things are sent to try us and that eventually we shall survive them. However, that is not an attitude that the House should find acceptable and nor, certainly, should Ministers of the Crown.
	That railway incident was a microcosm of the problems that face us throughout our national systems. I do not want to embarrass the Government by suggesting that the fact that we have not pulled many of those major systems into the state means that we are dependent on private companies; I realise that my colleagues have enormous faith in the efficiency of the management of private companies, although I do not necessarily share it. However, the Government must accept the fact that electricity generation is so fundamental to our economy that any interruption in supply not only destroys work on a particular day but may have a direct and vital impact on the economies of our cities and towns.
	That incident gave us a nasty warning. It told us, in effect, that we are dependent on fragile systems. There may be marvellous explanations—that the system is properly controlled and that there are alternative forms of generation—but when it came to the crunch none of those systems worked. It seems that the reason was simple and straightforward, which should give us considerable pause.
	I want the London underground to be able to respond not only to that kind of incident but to any emergency with tightly drawn and clearly understood procedures that are openly available to the general public and can be put into operation at extremely short notice. I believe that London Underground has that intent; my remarks are not made as a criticism of the present management, but as a warning to the House that acceptance of inadequate provision is never suitable.
	That brings me, finally, to the point that concerns me most. During my lifetime, I have seen changes in electricity generation. Many years ago, as a junior Minister, I had the privilege of sitting on an imaginative committee, run by the chief scientific officer. It dealt with planning for the UK's future fuel needs and considered the forms and use of various alternative fuels. That is where we must show real imagination and ability.
	The present system does not work. Whatever the reason and whatever the divisions between us—whether enough electricity is generated or whether the price is reduced—any nation that depends on the workings of the market for the generation of its most important fuel will get into the sort of difficulties that we experienced recently.
	We have been given a clear warning and we should heed it. Our entire system is so ramshackle—to put it kindly—that it should concern us. I rely on my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services and his fellow Ministers to talk to London Underground so that we use our response to that unexpected situation to ensure that we can deal with any future difficulty that arises. First, London Underground should immediately be capable of switching to alternative sources. Secondly, training and controls should be adequate to deal with an emergency. Thirdly, we should tell the various companies that it is not enough to talk about corporate responsibility if, when there is an emergency, they are unable to fulfil the tasks that they have been given by the state.
	If the operators, the regulators and the managers of the various companies cannot do their job efficiently, the House must demand that they change their ways and change them with considerable speed.

Richard Ottaway: We all listen to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) with respect. I admire the way in which she conducts herself. Although I often disagree with her, I agreed with every word that she said on this occasion. She made important points—I shall talk about the underground later—and I acknowledge the strength of her contribution.
	The debate is timely; it is the first time that we have discussed the subject since the publication of the White Paper. Of course, it has fallen to the Opposition to introduce the matter, as the Government, having got it out of the way, seem keen to avoid it.
	I am sorry that the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services is no longer in the Chamber as he gave a good reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), although it was tragically deficient in answers to the questions posed so admirably by my hon. Friend. The questions were fundamental and went to the heart of the way in which we run our society and our country. The Minister gave constructive replies to those questions that he actually answered, but all my hon. Friend's questions were serious and constructive, as was our motion, so I hope that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has a good track record, will respond equally positively in his reply to the debate.
	The Opposition and Government opening speeches were in stark contrast to the contribution from the Liberal Democrat energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I confess that although I listened to the hon. Gentleman carefully and he generously gave way a few times—once to me—I still have no idea what his policy is and how he would implement it if ever he had the chance to do so.
	The Liberal Democrat amendment, apart from being unnecessarily personal about a competent Minister, is wholly contradictory. It states that the Queen's Speech should announce
	"a full-time Minister who is charged with mitigating the negative impacts of privatisation",
	yet the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has just told us that he agrees with that policy. That Minister should implement
	"an integrated UK Energy Policy",
	whatever that means. I think that we already have one. The amendment concludes that the policy should include
	"the protection of the security of electricity supply",
	yet the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spent a large part of his speech telling us that that was not a problem. It was a most confusing contribution, but when the hon. Gentleman's book is reduced in price we can have a look it and then we may be a little wiser.

Andrew Stunell: I enjoyed that passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It was our wish that our amendment be the motion that the House debated; had that been so, I would have spoken in more detail on those points. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the book is relatively modestly priced and I shall put him in touch with the publisher after the debate.

Richard Ottaway: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that there should be an end to advertising. May I also mention that the Library is usually well stocked?

Richard Ottaway: You make a valid point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be a tragedy to have to pay for such a contribution.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove said that he wished that the debate could have been conducted according to the terms of the Liberal Democrat amendment. It was certainly all things to all people, so anything that he said would have been both in order and in line with his policy. Such is the nature of most Liberal Democrat policies.
	Returning to the core of the debate, there were tragic, difficult circumstances on the underground. I am heartened by a letter that I received from London Underground—I am sure that other hon. Members will have also received a copy—saying that it is taking the matter very seriously, reviewing the situation and looking into how such things can be avoided in the future. I wish London Underground well in that endeavour, but the answer is not clear to me. In confirming something said in an intervention by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), the Minister said that there was a back-up supply in Greenwich, but what happened to that back-up supply?

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I, too, await the inquiry's results, but I believe that the management considered that there was no need to use the back-up supply at Greenwich when they discovered that they could get electricity supplies from the grid rather more quickly and that sufficient reserves were left in the batteries on vehicles and in stations to ensure that the most basic safety levels, such as providing lighting, were maintained.

Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but it sounds as though the back-up is of an emergency nature, designed just to get through the day, rather than to restore supplies, which was the impression given previously. None the less, London Underground is considering the back-up safety systems, and I am comforted by its letter in which it says that only eight trains had to be evacuated via the tracks—as was confirmed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich—and that all the evacuation procedures worked.
	For many years, London Underground has been treated as a political football—in some cases, justifiably so—but everyone would wish it now to have a period of stability, so that the new senior management have a chance to get to grips with the public-private partnership, even though we may disagree with it, and we wish them well in their review and in the future conduct of their operations.
	On the security of supply, the central question is whether we have enough supplies in this country now and in the future. What is the problem that we are facing? Why are we concerned about supplies? One of the fundamental and radical changes that the Government made after taking office in 1997 was to introduce a pure market in the electricity generating sector, but, having introduced it, they immediately started to distort it to the extent that it is not a true market. They distorted it by effectively subsidising the nuclear industry, partly through their ownership of BNFL, which contains the most inefficient and ageing parts of the electricity generating sector that are hopelessly uneconomic, and their continued support for British Energy, despite many of us saying that such support probably contravened European Union rules. That subsidy means that the market is not operating properly. Under any normal circumstance, the most inefficient plant would have been shut down, prices would then have risen and the remaining plants could have operated economically.
	The result is that, notwithstanding the price rises of the past few months, prices have been at absolute rock bottom for the past several years. There has been no scope for investment. Most generators have operated on a break-even basis. Those operators with large debts have shut down or been sold at heavily discounted prices. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said in his opening remarks, the fall in the price of electricity from the generators has not been wholly passed on to the public. Prices paid by consumers have fallen, but there is no comparison with the generators' receipts. In truth, the Government have to explain why. Several rules and the operation of the competition policy are relevant, and there may be cross-subsidies for those companies that are distributors as well as generators.
	We have to consider whether it is satisfactory for supplies to be wholly dependent on gas alone. The Government's policies clash. They want to introduce lower prices through market forces, but that desire clashes with their environmental targets, and the Government are storing up trouble for the future. We have never had a genuine, true market in energy, except in the past five years. Previous Government's have always maintained close control over energy, with close intervention, but we now have a free market that has long-term consequences, particularly for future investment—something to which I shall return.
	The situation has been transformed over the past 12 years. In 1990, just three companies produced 80 per cent. of this country's electricity. Today, a significant number of companies do so, all of which introduce fresh problems. The heart of any good energy policy should be diversity of supply, and coal cannot be totally ignored in the way that the Government have intended. They have protected the nuclear industry, but coal-fired plants are the next most inefficient, and they have been struggling of late to make ends meet.
	The Government want to phase out coal as it is currently used—I am not talking about clean coal—because it represents a challenge to the environment. CO2 emissions from coal-fired generators are unacceptable in a modern society. However, introducing a free market policy clashes with such environmental objectives. That is undermining the energy policy, and it is why we are beginning to experience price shocks and interruptions in supply. I am talking not about the events of 28 August, but about the regular price spikes that are occurring as we get perilously close to capacity.
	A great deal of the generating plant is not economic, so many of the maintenance schedules have been reduced and many plants are becoming increasingly unreliable. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, I welcome the introduction of NETA and the liberalisation of the markets that that has produced. NETA quickly produced falls in prices but, as with any volatile market, it has overshot its target. The Government set a target that represented an aspiration for the level to which they hoped prices would fall, but I understand that prices have fallen considerably below that level and, as a result, the industry is in crisis—instead of investment, there are closures and cuts in maintenance.
	Of course, we have to consider what to do with British Energy. I recognise the difficulties that the Government will face in trying to close the nuclear plants if they run the company on an economic basis. I also recognise the difficulties that they have with the European Union, but many of us warned the Government that those difficulties would arise. The Government claimed that they had the answers to those questions, but many of us are still waiting to hear them.

Kim Howells: I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman's challenging speech. As he will know, I was involved with the legislation that introduced NETA. Does he recall that hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed worries about the fact that, under the old pool arrangements, there were serious allegations of high price setting, especially by major generators, and that there was general agreement that something had to be done to try to introduce some fairness and transparency for customers, including industrial customers and the public sector, as well as domestic consumers? Fine judgments have to be made, but the current system at least has greater transparency and even some predictability in some cases than what preceded it.

Richard Ottaway: The Minister is spot on. The pool arrangements came in after privatisation, and, after moving from a state-owned monolith, liquidity was needed in the sector. The previous Government should not therefore apologise for that. We did not quarrel with the introduction of NETA, however, which seemed to be at the right stage having introduced liquidity into the market. What has gone wrong is that it has overshot, and there is now not enough liquidity in the market. I was comforted that, in the Minister's opening speech, he said that Ofgem's price review will look at ways to encourage investment. I thought that that was probably the most important part of the speech, because without it there will be insufficient funding for investment. Currently, NETA is not producing sufficient liquidity for investment. Building a new power station has a lead-up of three to five years just for implementation, and a payback period of 20 to 30 years. No one in the private sector will invest £1 billion to build a new power station if they do not have some idea of what the price curve will look like during that 10, 20 or 30-year payback period. That is the problem, which is why I welcome the Minister's point about looking at ways to bring in extra investment. That will result in a reform of NETA in a way that I and, I suspect, most people would welcome.
	The performance and innovation unit report and the energy White Paper were very important in talking about the trade-offs that had to be made. The bombshell, however, was that there was no commitment whatever in relation to the nuclear industry. How can a White Paper be published that says that it is a blueprint for the next 50 years but leave open the question of the most important part of energy policy? That is beyond me. In truth, the White Paper is already beginning to look dated after just a few months, let alone in the first of its 50 years.
	A decision must be made about nuclear energy. If we want to have clean energy in this country, the country may have to be prepared to pay for it. In the long term, looking hundreds of years ahead, we will run out of fossil fuels, gas and oil, and the future will be nuclear energy. The challenge must be how to make it safe so that we do not have another Chernobyl, which I am sure can be done through modern technology and efficient regulation—and we will have to bite the bullet to a degree on cost. Nuclear energy has been a bedrock of the post-war years in this country and I think that it will be the bedrock in the years to come. The White Paper put heavy emphasis on the future of renewable energy. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk spoke about the scepticism as to whether those targets can be achieved. They are dramatic targets and I am sceptical about whether they can be met. Without nuclear energy, the mind boggles as to how the environmental targets that the Government have bravely set will ever be achieved in the long term.
	That, of course, brings me to the ugly duckling of the sector—coal-fired generation. The Government have consistently supported coal production because, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we are sitting on the most tremendous natural resource, which would in one stroke remove the questions that are being posed to the Government about security of supply. There is no question, however, of having coal in its present form. It must be clean coal, and I welcome the clean coal technology papers that the Government have published. I know that they are looking at how to introduce more investment in clean coal technology, but more must be done. Much bigger investment and commitment from the Government to clean coal technology is required if we are to produce the sort of reductions that we need. The Minister will know that the large combustion plant directive starts to bite in 2006, and the present generation of coal-fired generators will have to start shutting down between 2006 and 2015. Unless he has the answers to clean coal technology he will very quickly have a large gap in his diversified energy supplies, which will make the Opposition resolution pertinent, not in the long term but in the medium term.
	In my intervention, I raised the diplomatic and political risks involved in making our energy policy totally dependent on imports from Russia, which was described by Churchill as, I think, an enigma wrapped in a riddle. We have no idea of the political future in Russia or of how stable a country it is. President Putin seems to be a solid guy who is building up a coalition around him, and democracy seems to be catching on big time. The Liberal Democrat spokesman said that there was not a problem because Russia needs the money. However, I do not think that we can put our trust in that—we must have alternative, back-up supplies.
	We can all remember the pressure and concern in the run-up to the debate on Iraq. Russia and France were being very difficult in the United Nations Security Council and refused to give their support. Tremendous leverage could have been used with the United Kingdom if Russia could say that it was free to turn off our energy supply overnight. We saw that in the oil crisis of the early 1970s. Russia might not cut us off completely, but it might gently reduce supply by 10 per cent., which would push up prices and start to hurt the British economy. It could be a very powerful tool, so it would be folly to be dependent for 70 per cent. of our gas supply on Russia.

Kim Howells: I have an interesting question for the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] His Whip is now telling him off for speaking for too long.
	The difference between this country's ability to react in the 1970s to the oil price shocks and the more limited choice that we have now is that, in the 1970s, we still had a considerable coal industry. In the late 1970s and 1980s, it disappeared. A lot of the coal reserves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and about which he knows a great deal, are now effectively sterilised—we cannot get at them—and trying to access an opencast coal mine is a planning nightmare. From where does he think we will get this coal? I agree that far more diversified coal supplies are available in terms of world trade than gas supplies, but it will still not be easy and the coal will still come from some very politically unstable areas in the world.

Richard Ottaway: The Minister makes a good point. I remember that when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Heseltine—when he was, I think, energy spokesman during debates on the coal industry in the early 1990s—those were just the points being made when we were sitting on the other side of the Chamber. I do not think that we can depend totally on the UK. Most of the coal mines in the UK are uneconomic, but a huge variety of coal is available for import. As most people will know, coal can be imported from, say, South Africa more cheaply than it can be extracted from the coal mines of this country. That was the problem that we had in those debates in the 1990s.
	I have made my points. I conclude by recommending to the Minister the NERA economic consulting paper, entitled, "Persuading the Private Sector to Meet the Aims of Energy Policy". It calls for a strategy to introduce more investment in the energy sector. If there were more investment in electricity generation in this country, the questions that we are discussing could be addressed provided that we do not remain wholly dependent on supplies from foreign countries.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: In addition to being the proud Member for Crosby, I am also a chartered engineer. I am a fellow of both the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and I have produced some of the information that I shall provide today in conjunction with my colleagues from those institutions.
	The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services talked about the history of the power supply for London Underground. The history is important because it demonstrates clearly some of the problems that have faced this country's large electricity consumers during the past century. A legal requirement was placed on London Underground to provide its own electrical supply, but that choice became less attractive as the industry developed. The necessary equipment was introduced at Lots road in Chelsea and Greenwich in the 1970s but it became more expensive to maintain. The start of the discussion about electricity privatisation caused London Underground to look again at its capacity and make decisions about whether it wished to retain it. As the Minister said, the capacity had failed on numerous occasions for several minutes at a time, although I stress that there had not been a catastrophic failure such as that on 28 August.
	At the time of privatisation of the electrical supply, the great cost benefit of switching from self-generation to using a local energy supplier could not be ignored. London Electricity approached London Underground with a deal that it could not resist. The deal was to provide London Underground with its electrical supplies at half the cost of generating its own capacity, so it was a lucrative option. It decided to take advantage of services supplied by London Electricity but retained the capacity to produce some 40 MW of energy itself. I am acutely conscious that 300 or 400 MW does not mean much to a layperson, but the energy that London Underground consumes each day is the amount required to power 200,000 homes or a small city. It is a huge amount of energy and that fact allows us to understand the complex and intensive structure that is required to underpin such capacity.
	When London Underground chose to opt out of supplying its own energy, it entered a world in which it would be only one part of a chain that invariably started with National Grid Transco, which supplied power to local electricity companies that supplied it to the end market. It has been established today, although it needs repeating, that the failure in London had nothing to do with lack of capacity. There was sufficient capacity in the grid but the transmission of the capacity to the end user failed.
	National Grid has a regular maintenance programme, which is undertaken during the summer because the demand on the system is less than at any other time of the year. The system is already geared to accommodate two major failures such as a complete transformer going down and a pylon falling over. Such huge failures have been planned for and considered but have never arisen thus far. However, the failure of a contractor had not been planned for. We have heard that London's catastrophic power failure happened because a contractor who was working for an opted-out company had installed the wrong fuse.
	The failure of the system was one thing, but I shall now talk about the relevant parties' response to it. London Underground put in place its emergency plan. I am not terribly sure about the plan—I have not seen it—but I assume that it includes a scenario in which there was a complete power failure to the underground. Although I have made that assumption, I want reassurances that such a plan has been developed. How was the plan disseminated and communicated to the operatives in London Underground?
	I worked for Shell Chemicals for several years and was responsible for the transport of all its products throughout the UK. The products included some pretty awful stuff. We discussed what would happen if one of our tankers fell over at the junction of the M6 and M5 in Birmingham because we would have had to notify the emergency authorities that the evacuation area had to be 12 miles. Hon. Members can imagine that we were talking about a pretty serious product and a serious emergency incident if a tanker containing 20 tonnes of product required an evacuation area of 12 miles.
	We had difficulty mocking up such a huge exercise because it required turning a tanker on its side, bringing all emergency services into play at the same time to get the tanker back up and getting the place managed in a safe and orderly fashion. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) asked whether the lessons learned from 28 August had been incorporated into the recent emergency planning exercise in London. I must ask a similar question. When does London Underground have the opportunity to instigate such an emergency exercise? We can all appreciate that it would be highly desirable for such time to be available but the exercise would be conducted at substantial cost. The problem for London Underground and suppliers of energy to the arena is how to accommodate such an exercise without huge disruption and cost.

Patrick Mercer: The hon. Lady makes a good point. If she had been at the exercise 10 days or so ago, she would have seen that it was wholly unrealistic. How does one plan such an exercise without providing financial compensation for ruining the City's trade for at least a day? If we are ever to get our heads around the problem, however, such a thing must be done. I hope to ask later whether such an exercise will be held realistically.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman clearly illustrates the problem at hand but there are solutions. The whole transport system would not have to be taken down because one could choose to fail aspects of the system to discover the readiness of a working unit to deal with it. Many different industries use such a system and, although I am not an expert, I do not understand why it could not be used for the underground. I am worried about London Underground's response because although it was safe, it was not especially effective. I do not understand what the company will gain from the learning exercise.
	I also have real worries about London Electricity. When London Underground was operating its power supply, it had its own staff, which was absolutely essential. They were highly qualified and experts in delivering power to the system. They knew that system intimately because engineers know the systems with which they are involved and can usually pinpoint a problem within minutes of it arising before taking appropriate action. But when power provision was transferred to London Electricity, one of the first problems that arose was that of communication between London Underground, as the users of the electricity, and London Electricity, as its suppliers. As we know from the significant arguments that took place here about the privatisation of electricity, inadequate communication between party A and party B can be a significant problem following the fragmentation of an industry. I do not know what London Electricity has done to plan for disasters and emergencies and what correspondence and joint planning exercises it has conducted with London Underground, one of its major customers. Did they sit around a table together and say, "How do we plan for catastrophic failure of the underground? What is going to be our response and what is going to be your response?" My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) alluded to the failure of various parties to talk among themselves and to agree coherent plans. In this case, there is little evidence of the existence of a co-ordinated plan.
	The other element is the national grid. We have a three-party supply line consisting of the national grid, the local supplier and the end user. National Grid has developed a significant number of scenarios for power failure. That is impressive, and it is evidenced not least by the fact that per head of the population we have fewer power failures than any other country. That is an extraordinary position to find ourselves in: we should be grateful.

Mark Hendrick: Like my hon. Friend, I, too, am a chartered electrical engineer. What is her opinion on the recent power failures in the United States? I was in the US when the power failure occurred in London. There is still great debate over there about that failure and the qualities of a system that is even more fragmented than that of the UK.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: If anything should happen to my hon. Friend and me with regard to employment in this place, we will be safe in America, which has a desperate shortage of appropriately qualified staff to manage not only transmission, but integration. Two factors in the US failures were states failing to pay bills to providers and lack of capacity. I am pleased to say that capacity is not an issue in this country; it was certainly not a factor in the failure on the London underground. In fact, it was caused by human failure—the whole system was brought to its knees by the failure of one contractor. It is not the first disaster to be caused by the failure of a contractor: Hatfield was an example that had not only economic consequences, but caused devastating loss of life.
	Speaking as a member of the engineering community, we have huge concerns about the shortage of adequately trained staff. The incident on the underground could have been caused either by an inadequately trained individual who simply made a mistake—human error is perfectly admissible and permissible—or by an individual who had received very little training in a very important system. That is not unusual. I started my engineering career in the 1970s; the world of the next 20 years was one of reduction, not expansion, in the UK's engineering capacity. When I was the dean of an engineering department, I had to preside over the closure of parts of it. I became increasingly concerned that, as a nation, we were not producing sufficient skilled tradespeople, incorporated engineers or chartered engineers to be able adequately to manage the infrastructure that exists today. There is an acute shortage of power engineers and heavy electrical engineers. Those are not glamorous professions, but we desperately need such individuals, who are essential to companies' safe operation.
	Following the Hatfield disaster, there was much discussion about whether the rail industry would be able to hang on to its professional engineers, who were desperately worried about the lack of investment and the possibility that they would ultimately be left carrying the can. We now have massive expansion in public sector investment, but that cannot be sustained without adequately trained staff. I hope that the review will reinforce what came out of the Hatfield review—namely, that in order to continue to provide safe systems we need adequately trained staff. That means that we have to assess our capacity to produce those people and to make engineering and the activities of engineers attractive to a population of young people who are not interested in that enormously rewarding and exciting work.
	That concludes my comments; I look forward to the Minister's response.

Crispin Blunt: It is always a pleasure to listen to an authoritative speech from a Member who is very well informed; I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her contribution. It is extremely important that she drew to the House's attention, in relation to the London underground incident, the importance of differentiating the issue of capacity and the way in which the power shortage occurred in the transmission system. Her discussion of engineering capacity in the United Kingdom could have been delivered so effectively only by the former dean of an engineering department. That issue must be addressed through the reward structure and the way in which we view engineers in our society. Our engineering capacity has been central to our economic success for a matter of centuries.
	The hon. Lady's point about the resilience of the national grid was also well made. If her figures are correct, the national grid is delivering electricity for the United Kingdom with the greatest degree of reliability in the world—although one or two tiny little countries may well seek to challenge that.
	I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on raising the subject for debate. Security of the electricity supply is an immensely important issue. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that the general public are interested only in the consequences when things go wrong—and, boy, is that right! It is our duty as elected representatives to ensure that we do not put the general public in a position where they have to endure the consequences of our failure to look ahead. The greatest problem, which the Government still have to confront, is the failure of the energy White Paper to deliver a proper framework for energy policy.
	This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the subject from the Back Benches since I ceased to be the Conservative party spokesman on energy in May. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on taking on those responsibilities. I hope that he finds them equally stimulating and that he finds working for the shadow Secretary of State just as enjoyable. We agreed about many things and I very much appreciated the partnership. However, having departed the scene, there are one or two lines in the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State to which I take slight exception.
	The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services replied to my hon. Friend and, outstanding as he is, it is too much of a burden for him to look after e-commerce and the Post Office as well as energy. It was not very long ago that energy had its own Department, with a Secretary of State in Cabinet. Given the challenge that the security of electricity supply will pose to the United Kingdom over the next few decades as we become a net importer of fuel again, it is important that we should have a Minister as talented as the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services but whose sole responsibility focuses on energy matters. The Government face serious challenges because of the sad lack of framework in the energy White Paper.
	As for the security of supply and the Conservative motion, like the hon. Member for Crosby, I am reasonably reassured by briefings and information from the National Grid that any short-term problems in supply and capacity can be tackled, as it has 18 per cent. overcapacity, enabling it to meet the point of highest demand. Even in difficult circumstances, it has further tools available to it—for example, asking major electricity consumers such as aluminium factories and so on not to use electricity at certain times and to reduce their output by 10 per cent. In the short term, that gives the national grid the capacity to establish the required safety margin.
	The Minister also drew attention to the fact that the price mechanism is now starting to operate. However, my thesis is that it must operate within a framework. It is our job as parliamentarians to examine the Government's framework and make sure that it is robust. Having studied these matters for nearly a year as my party's spokesman, I wish to elaborate on my proposals for that framework. In the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) draws attention to concern about the Government's plans
	"to make Britain dependent on gas imports from unreliable sources".
	My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) also drew attention to his concerns in that area. Problems are unavoidable, as gas is used to generate 38 per cent. of the electricity that we consume and is the fuel supplied to the vast majority of the domestic sector. We will continue to rely on it in one form or another for the foreseeable future—indeed that trend will continue upwards. Gas will constitute an increasing share of the fuel that we require. From 2005 to 2006, we will no longer be self-sufficient in natural gas and, as has been pointed out, from 2020 we may be importing up to 90 per cent. of our gas.
	When I became shadow energy spokesman, one of the first issues on which I wanted to satisfy myself was the question of how much gas there is in the world and the security of supply risk to our major fuel. The simple answer was present in the Government's own analysis, initially from the performance and innovation unit and then in the energy White Paper. There is lots of gas out there—the Russians have about 30 per cent. of the world's supply and so far 100 years' worth of gas supplies around the world have been identified. As we become a gas importer, we will have to address the issue of security of supply by having as many different sources of natural gas as we can reasonably achieve.
	That is why, in the wake of the White Paper, I watched with approbation the journeys made by the former energy Minister, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), around the world as he tried to secure the gas supplies that are vital to our future interests. He was in continual negotiations with Norway over the delivery of gas from the north Norwegian sea, and went to Moscow, Algeria and Iran. I do not know whether he went to Qatar, but it is thought to have 8 per cent. of the world's gas supplies, so it may be another important gas source for us. I very much welcome proposals to create a Northern Natural Gas terminal to bring liquefied natural gas into the United Kingdom from areas where it is uneconomic to pump compressed gas.
	I particularly welcome proposals for pipelines direct from Russia, thus avoiding the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk that supplies from Russia will have to go through Germany before reaching the United Kingdom. The Government have made all the right noises about policy on the supply of fuel, particularly gas, being part of our European and diplomatic policy, and it is necessary that they keep up the pressure on that issue. It must be a high priority for everyone up to and including the Prime Minister whenever he is in discussion with Heads of Government, particularly President Putin of Russia, which has a large share of gas supplies, and other Heads of Government in the region. That priority is also central to our wider security and foreign policy in Iran and the middle east. It is important to ensure that the new Saudi gas deals—the Saudis have hitherto ignored their substantial natural gas resources, which are about four times as large as the North sea's—are concluded successfully so that western oil and gas companies can translate those deals into production and widen the sources of gas available to the UK.
	Our energy shop is based on gas, whether we like it or not, so for the foreseeable future—certainly for at least the next two or three decades—we have no choice but to deal with the issue of getting gas from what the motion calls "unreliable sources". I am not convinced that we can be quite as complacent as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who said that there is no risk to our security of supply. These matters must be kept under review, and that is properly the function of the review set up by the Government. However, we must also consider the national security aspects of the issue—ensuring the security of fuel supply will be an important part of our defence policy. The threat may be limited, but if it becomes a reality it would be catastrophic for the United Kingdom. These matters must therefore be kept under permanent and constant review. All the signs are that the world is becoming a more interdependent place. Using the interdependence of Russia and the United Kingdom as an example, that country needs our money as much as, if not more than, we need its gas. The lessons that we can learn from the oil price shocks of 1974 and 1980 and the way in which the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries has since managed its policies are that it suits countries with natural gas to ensure that the world is reliant on a constant supply of natural gas. If our industries become reliant on cheap and constant supplies of gas we will not start looking around for other fuels. The oil price shocks stimulated huge investment in the search for alternatives to oil, and in the end that did not do the oil producers themselves any favours. I believe that they have learned that particular lesson.
	The reference in the motion to the concern about gas imports from unreliable sources is intended to draw the Government into a debate about the fuel mix, which they have previously resisted. It is clear from the energy White Paper that they do not believe that that is a proper decision for government, and I agree with them. If we start going down that road, we are obliged to consider the alternatives to gas. The main source of fuel for electricity generation is coal, but the future of that is not frightfully bright—indeed, it is bleak. The large-scale plant combustion directive will make uneconomic a large proportion of the electricity supplied from coal-fired power stations, and once the emissions trading regime comes into operation and proper pricing of carbon dioxide emissions begins, it is hard to see how almost any form of coal-fired electricity production will be economic, compared with gas or alternative sources.
	The Government are investing in carbon sequestration and trying to find a way of rescuing what is left of the electricity generating industry. We must consider carefully the scale of investment that might be required to keep coal-fired electricity generation staggering on. The investment may not be worth the candle. Any Government dealing with energy policy must recognise that the No. 1 requirement is to go on delivering secure and economic electricity supplies, because the wealth of our industry and our quality of life depend on that achievement. Privatisation has contributed greatly to the economic supply of electricity in the United Kingdom, as well as an extremely reliable source of supply in normal circumstances.
	The saddest thing about the White Paper was its failure to address the future of the nuclear-generated electricity industry. The Government are doing the country a huge disservice by delaying a decision about that. They must put in place a framework within which future investors will be able to decide whether to invest in new nuclear power stations. Plainly, the Government will not build new nuclear power stations. I believe there is a way to achieve that, as part of an overall energy policy.
	We need to create a proper free market in energy within environmental constraints. The vast majority of scientific opinion is agreed that the greatest threat to the planet is atmospheric pollution and climate change. The Government and the European Union are moving towards emissions trading for carbon dioxide. Sadly, that scheme will apply only to large-scale emitters. It will not be comprehensive and will cover only about 30 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. I hope to publish in the near future my detailed proposals for an energy policy for the United Kingdom that would provide a comprehensive environmental framework and would, as far as possible, price all greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity production, transport and domestic use of power. We could then begin to price the comprehensive environmental consequences of what we do.
	We have failed to produce a system that does that. The result is that the Government are giving huge support to renewable electricity generation, for example, although its cost is astronomic. The wind farms that are now attracting investment in order for investors to take advantage of the subsidy available from the Government are hopelessly uneconomic. They will be a huge cost to the country. There will be far better ways to achieve the environmental objectives associated with reducing greenhouse gas emission than the production of electricity from wind power.

Mark Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's White Paper and their position on nuclear power. Will he tell us his party's position on the future of nuclear power?

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful for the invitation. I shall not trespass too long on the time of the House, even though the subject of energy is vast and all-consuming. I hope that we will have more time to debate it in the House. Briefly, in the same way as we should find a mechanism to price the atmospheric pollution caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, we should price the future pollution that will be associated with nuclear production. It is not unreasonable to expect new designs of nuclear power stations to allow an estimate of the cost of dealing with the fuel that will come out of those power stations, and the final cost of decommissioning them. Then one can impose an environmental charge against those power stations, in accordance with their expected lifespan.
	On top of that cash stream, which in the United States has been set at 0.1 cent for the past couple of decades, which has produced the money that is now paying for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in the US, some form of insurance premium could also be charged in case those calculations turned out to be hopelessly wrong, as was the case with the first generation of nuclear power stations, which turned out to be vastly more expensive to clean up than anyone ever anticipated. That would also produce the funds to deal with the problem that we face now—the problem of the environmental pollution created by radioactivity. The Government cannot escape their responsibilities in that regard.
	There is a way for those costs to be priced in, and if that is done for each design of nuclear power station, and if the costs associated with carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are also priced in as far as possible, investors will be able to decide whether to invest in wind farms, gas-fired electricity stations or clean coal technology. That is the way forward. It provides investors with a framework in which to make decisions and will then allow the market to operate. It will also be possible to price in factors such as security of supply. As soon as it becomes clear that the supply is under threat, the price of electricity will be almost infinite. People will pay an enormous amount if they think they will be denied supplies of electricity. That is a commodity for which an effective market can work. The challenge facing us and the Government is to create the framework that will enable that market to function and to produce clean, cheap electricity on which we can all rely.

Patrick Mercer: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for making one or two points on which I hope to expand. I shall confine my remarks to the security aspects of the London underground, with particular reference to the exercise that took place about 10 days ago.
	I shall pose a number of questions. I apologise in advance to the Minister if that causes him confusion. I realise that most of the questions could be answered by various Ministers—the Home Secretary, the Minister with responsibility for the Cabinet Office, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, or the Secretary of State for Transport. Who knows who will answer the questions? The Government do not have one central point to which to address questions relating to homeland security. If they did, perhaps some of my questions might receive a proper and coherent answer.
	Almost 10 years ago, there was a sarin attack on the Tokyo underground. I do not need to remind the House of its effect. Since then, every terrorist group worth its salt has promised a similar attack somewhere in the world. Even before 11 September, there was the threat of an attack on the British underground. Most recently, a home-grown bunch of terrorists told us that that would happen. We had a warning from the head of MI5, as well as a warning about suicide bombers from one of the Metropolitan police's most senior officers.
	Despite all those events, it has taken more than two years since 11 September for such an emergency to be practised in any realistic way. While I am grateful that there has been a practical exercise rather than a table-top, procedural, telephone or computer exercise, my first question to the Minister is: why has it taken so long? Where is the energy and the determination to protect not only our underground travellers, but the people of London? Where is the drive to ensure that the threat is being taken seriously?
	For instance, why was the exercise planned and conducted on a Sunday, when there was no traffic and few people, few trains were running and it was easy to close the affected part of the underground system? I understand the points made about the financial implications for the City, but why was the scenario practised in such an easy way? Two thirds of the problem relates to other traffic and congestion, but that element did not arise. Why were the emergency services in position before the exercise? Why were the police and the fire and ambulance services in place? Why was the civil contingencies reaction force not present? Why were the armed forces not involved?
	Why was the whole exercise so mechanistic and procedural, two years after 11 September and almost 10 years after the Tokyo attacks? It was good to see policemen, firemen and others donning those ghastly and uncomfortable suits and masks and getting down into the underground, but it was clear to me, as it would have been to the Minister if he had been present, that they were wholly unfamiliar with what they were doing. I could have understood that unfamiliarity if the exercise had been conducted in the weeks following 11 September, but I could not do so two years afterwards.
	When will such an emergency be practised outside London? When will such problems be physically rehearsed on other rail networks and in other tunnels? When will we next see such an exercise in London? More to the point, when will it be practised at a realistic time of day and with all the associated problems? That prompts the question of why so little account was taken of what happened on 28 August. Why were not the lessons carried forward immediately, clearly and with the energy and impetus that I would have expected? Surely, every sort of chance disaster, if that is the right phrase, must be used to teach lessons. The lessons must be implemented quickly and effectively; otherwise we will not be bothering or taking the matter seriously.
	I have already asked about the next practical exercise—in the armed forces, it would be called a field training exercise—and asked when one is next planned for London, but answer comes there none. When will the emergency services be given a run in proper conditions, so that they can improve their reactions and so that London and the rest of the country get a proper crack of the whip? There is little doubt that such an emergency is coming. People far more knowledgeable than me have already warned that that is the case.
	Some very fine words about the exercise were broadcast by the Liberal party. It was highly critical and made some suggestions and observations. Yet as far as I could see, not a single Liberal spokesperson or Member of Parliament was present. It is interesting that the Liberal Benches are so empty today. I say to the Liberal party that if it wants to comment, it should put its money where its mouth is by getting on the ground and seeing what the problems are.
	In summary, valuable lessons were learned a couple of weekends ago that may help with the London underground if and when an emergency arises. However, I say to the Minister that if what happened in Tokyo happens in London, the Government will never be forgiven, and any of us with half a conscience will never forgive ourselves. I urge him to act and to do so in a realistic rather than a wholly unrealistic manner.

Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate.
	Like other hon. Members, I wish to focus on electricity supply and the London underground. We understood from the Minister that evacuation procedures were carried out according to standard arrangements during recent events. That may well have been the case, but, if so, one wonders why it took up to 90 minutes to evacuate some people. He also said that there was no room for complacency. I think that we need to look back at some of the problems that arose during evacuation of the Central line in January to see whether the lessons have been applied.
	For instance, problems arose in respect of emergency lighting on the train and mayday calls being broadcast on the intercom, which meant that passengers could hear them. There was a potential problem with regard to passengers descending an escalator into Chancery lane station while the emergency was under way. Problems also arose when passengers involved in the incident did not receive counselling. A large number of issues arose from the Chancery lane incident, and I should like some reassurances that they will be considered, that the lessons have been learned and that the evacuation following the recent interruption to power supply went smoothly.
	Communications also need further investigation and were a significant problem at Chancery lane station. It appears they were also a problem in relation to the more recent incident. I understand that the National Grid Company knew that there was no terrorist cause and immediately advised EDF to that effect, but that there was a delay in passing on the information. Presumably—the Minister may be able to clarify this point—the information would have had to go through Seeboard Powerlink before it arrived on the desk of London Underground Ltd. If the need for different organisations to be contacted sequentially is a problem, it must be addressed.
	Similarly, the issue of communications outside London Underground must also be addressed. That involves what commuters knew about the incident. Furthermore, after the incident, broadcasters were unable to provide much information about the reasons for the problems that commuters were experiencing. There was almost a communications blackout in terms of people travelling on the tube, and that issue must be looked at.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned the back-up power supply. I shall not go into the history of Lots road, but the Minister must reassure us that commuters are not in a worse position now than they were previously with regard to a back-up power supply that could provide traction for the tube. I hope that the Minister can explain what consideration was given to a back-up power supply when the closure of Lots road was examined and why it was eventually decided not to pursue the option. I also hope that he can say whether it is intended to hold discussions involving the Government, Transport for London, the Mayor and the national grid about the potential need for such a supply.
	If action is taken on the key issues—communications, ascertaining whether evacuation procedures for the London underground worked as effectively as they could, implementing the lessons from Chancery lane, conducting a review of back-up power supply arrangements—something positive will emerge from a disaster that affected hundreds of thousands of Londoners.

Tim Collins: It is a well worn cliché on such occasions that those who make the wind-up speeches say how excellent and informative the debate has been. However, I genuinely believe that that applies today. As a humble transport spokesman, I have learned more about energy supply this afternoon than I ever expected I would.
	I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who spoke with a depth of understanding about and interest in NETA, and to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who spoke, as a former dean of an engineering department, with great knowledge of the technical background to events on 28 August. She also made some wider points that I hope the Government will take on board in the longer term.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made an interesting contribution. He has studied energy supply in great depth in recent months. I shall revert shortly to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who speaks for our party on homeland security and posed the Government some important challenges.
	I make it clear at the outset to both Ministers that no one believes that the issues that they confront and that we have been debating are easy to resolve or require the mere waving of a magic wand or the exercise of political will to cause all difficulties to disappear. Of course, that is not the case. We are dealing with challenges that have built up over many years. The decisions that we make will have consequences for many more years and decades.
	I shall begin with some comments about our general energy debate before concluding with a few specific questions to the Minister for Transport on transport matters. Although I look forward to his response because he is one of the most entertaining speakers on the Government Front Bench, I regret the absence of the Secretary of State for Transport. We understand the absence of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—she is returning from the Cancun deliberations, which it was perfectly appropriate that she should attend. However, the Transport Secretary is absent because he has been attending a party to celebrate the first stage of the channel tunnel rail link. Some would say that it was a little premature to celebrate any part of our transport infrastructure, but we shall await the Minister's comments.
	Many speeches paid tribute to the skill and ability of the Minister for Energy. We find it curious that he is also Minister for E-Commerce and Postal Services, just as it is curious that the Secretary of State for Transport doubles as Secretary of State for Scotland.
	Events in London and the south-east on 28 August and in the west midlands on 5 September—and in many parts of East Anglia last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) pointed out—harked back to the past. In an entertaining speech, which I shall shortly consider in greater detail, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that the last time we had serious power failures was shortly after the second world war. She may be right about the scale but, as someone who grew up in the 1970s under Governments of both parties, the events to which I referred were reminiscent of the period when many of us enjoyed our childhood. There were repeated power failures and power cuts. Eighteen years of Conservative government consigned them to memory and perhaps it is not coincidental that, after six years of a Labour Government, we appear to be reverting to some unfortunate old patterns.
	The hon. Member for Crosby rightly set out in almost as much detail as the Minister—who reads a brief that is put in front of him—the exact technical nature of the failure on 28 August. I am not qualified to challenge her and I am sure that her description of what happened practically is accurate. However, what occurred was described by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich as a clear warning of what might happen if we do not have security of supply in the future. That is the context in which the wider points about the Government's energy policy and the sad deficiencies of their energy White Paper were made by a number of speakers, not only on this side of the House.
	There is a general sense of disappointment that the Government, who had placed such great stress on the quality of their energy White Paper, its all-embracing nature and the courage with which various options were going to be assessed and decided in it, have none the less come up with a document in which, in the view of many experts, they have ducked more decisions than they have made. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, but was not adequately addressed by the Minister, who made the best of a rather sticky wicket. I do not blame him for the difficulties in which he finds himself, but many people seriously question what the status of energy supply will be in 2020 and whether it is credible to believe, as the Government do, that by then 20 per cent. of our energy will come from renewable sources. Very few people dispute the desirability of that outcome, if it is deliverable, but many have reservations about whether it can be done.
	It seems curious, given that the Government have chosen to produce this White Paper, that it should be in Opposition time that the House first gets the opportunity to debate the issues arising from it. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, it also seems extraordinary that it should be through private correspondence that we receive a commitment from the Government to place an energy Bill in the next Queen's Speech. It would be helpful to find out whether the Minister is prepared to say on the Floor of the House what we understand a couple of Ministers have said in correspondence: namely, that there will definitely be an energy Bill in the Queen's Speech. If so, what areas it will cover?
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, rather unfairly attacked the splendid speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, who spoke with characteristic panache. The hon. Gentleman accused him of over-reacting and of warning that the whole world was going to come to an end. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is his party's amendment that says that Government policy has
	"left the electricity generation industry in crisis",
	and that it was his speech, not that of my hon. Friend, that ended by accusing the Government of acting in panic.
	Some of us also found it curious that the hon. Gentleman spent some time saying how wicked and evil it was that the Conservative Government had created a relationship between the power driving the lights in the House and the French Government, given that his party believes that our European neighbours should rule every aspect of our domestic lives. It was even more curious that he thought it a problem to have an energy relationship with the French Government, but perfectly all right to be dependent for large parts of our future energy supply on the Russian Government. That seemed an odd position to take. He did, however, tell the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South that all problems would be solved if we were to purchase a copy of his book. All I would say, in the kindest possible way, is that if he writes as well as he speaks in the House, I do not think that J. K. Rowling will have any real competition or difficulties with her sales figures.
	The priority that has emerged from many of today's speeches is that we must ensure that lessons are learned from what happened on 28 August and subsequently. In that context, I would like to press the Transport Minister on a matter that I raised earlier with the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services. Who, precisely, will be responsible for learning the lessons, particularly about evacuation procedures—a point also raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and others—and about the general handling by London Underground of incidents relating to power cuts? Who will be in charge of implementing any ensuing recommendations?
	As a result of the £500 million that the Treasury spent on the negotiations over the public-private partnership for the London underground, we now have an extremely complicated and long series of contracts, but it is still not clear to many London commuters who will be responsible for implementing any recommendations on these issues. Will it be the Government, Transport for London, the Mayor of London or the individual train companies? Or will it, as the Minister appeared to suggest earlier, be up to individual drivers to decide what to do in particular circumstances?

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services was right to say that the practitioners, whether on the trains or in the underground stations, will have to take those decisions in the light of all the circumstances. Ultimately, the Mayor of London takes responsibility for the conduct of the underground.

Tim Collins: That was a helpful reply as far as it went, but the Minister will know that, although responsibility for London underground has, rather belatedly, been devolved to the Mayor of London, responsibility for health and safety legislation, security and a range of associated issues have not been devolved. They remain the Government's responsibility. What about issues relating to what happened on 28 August? The Minister said that 57 tube trains were stuck in tunnels—passengers were kept on 49 of them, but 1,200 passengers were taken out of the carriages of eight trains and put on to the surface of the tunnel, where they walked along beside the rails. As a result, the problems took longer to resolve than they otherwise would have done.
	I am not expecting the Minister to have a definitive answer this afternoon, but Londoners expect greater clarity about the overlap, especially between the homeland security issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark referred and the responsibilities of the Mayor of London and others.
	Understandably, there has been huge publicity in the London and national media, as a result of what happened on 28 August, about which precise electricity substations in which precise geographical locations provide power to the primary transport mechanism for the capital city of the fourth largest economy in the world. It is not being unduly paranoid to say that among those who will have read those details are people who do not bear this country and its citizens any good will. What additional steps have been taken to protect those electricity substations to ensure that, now that it has become more obvious how fragile some of these arrangements are, people will be deterred and detected should they attempt to threaten them? Many of us share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. Like others, I was making that point two years ago when I was shadowing the Cabinet Office. We need a homeland security Department, like that in the United States, to provide a single focus, so that someone can be answerable to the House for questions on these matters.
	We do not for a moment believe that it is easy or simple to provide energy security for the future of this country but, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, we believe that that is one of the first duties of Government. We hope and expect that the Government will introduce legislation on this matter in the Queen's Speech, that they will provide answers to some of the issues that they ducked in their energy White Paper, that they will accept that this matter is of supreme national significance—not just in London but especially in London—and that they will give us a sense that they recognise that fudge and delay in this area can no longer be tolerated. Clear decisions, clearly announced and clearly implemented, will alone meet the demands of this hour.

Kim Howells: May I echo the words of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)? This has been an excellent and challenging debate. Like him, I was particularly impressed by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), and by those of his hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). In fact, we have not heard a speech that has been less than interesting. I shall not join in the cracks about the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has nicked my line. I was about to say that when it is remaindered, I may have a look at his book.
	The Government share the concerns expressed by hon. Members about the temporary loss of power in south London and Kent on 28 August, and the subsequent impact on and disruption to travellers. When I heard about it, I immediately thought of the confident statements made in the aftermath of the blackout in north-east America by our own energy regulator and many others, who said that it could never happen here because our system was too robust.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services explained, some 410,000 customers in south London and parts of Kent lost electricity. Power was restored through the transmission system within 30 minutes, and within another 11 minutes the local distribution system was re-energised and normal power was restored in all areas. As at least one Member has said, however, there is no room for complacency. Our aim must be to ensure that there are no interruptions to such a vital system. We should also bear in mind the potential danger of conveying people through what may be long and deep tunnels in London.
	The power failure did, of course, have far-reaching consequences. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned the heavy rail network. We must draw lessons from the extent to which that network was affected, and I shall ensure that the investigations take it into account—along with the fact, not mentioned so far, that hundreds of traffic lights went out in London. We should bear it in mind that only 6 per cent. of journeys in this country are made by rail. A huge number of vehicles were held up in traffic jams. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), we have many lessons to learn. Security involves a range of aspects of our lives, not just the economic aspect. Being able to negotiate the streets is certainly one of the most important.
	The power cut caused disruption to surface rail services, the underground, street lights and traffic systems, as well as electricity users in homes and workplaces. Although London's critical infrastructure has back-up arrangements, there was significant and worrying disruption to the transport service in general. All the agencies involved are reviewing their back-up plans in the light of difficulties caused to passengers after the power cut. Following the publication of National Grid's report on 10 September, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services announced that the Department of Trade and Industry and Ofgem would conduct their own inquiries, and we hope that the results will be published by mid-November. The DTI's engineering inspectorate will conduct its own detailed investigation of all the technical and operational issues involved in the security of our electricity supply.
	As my hon. Friend explained at the beginning, the cause of the power cut has now been traced to two faults that affected the same section of the network at almost the same time; but we will not hear this Minister blame some individual for putting a fuse with the wrong ampage into a box. As Members on both sides of the House have said, there are lessons to be learned and serious investigations to be conducted, involving the whole range of electricity generation and supply. The hon. Member for Reigate and others have reminded us of the seriousness of these issues, and they will be taken fully into account.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have very little time left.
	Risks to complex systems such as the energy supply cannot be eliminated, but we are determined to use this experience in a way that will enable us—along with other agencies, the regulator and the companies involved—to minimise and, where necessary, manage those risks. The Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Transport are also determined to ensure that the necessary lessons are learned, because the Government share the House's feeling that what happened on 28 August must not happen again. Our transport providers need secure, reliable supplies and an effective and appropriate means of handling disruption, if and when it should occur.
	In answer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, London Underground draws its power from the national grid under a private finance initiative deal—it was finalised in 1998 but began long before then— with Seeboard Powerlink, which manages, maintains, develops and finances the London underground power supply system. The PFI deal stems from a decision first taken by London Underground in 1985: that the Lots road power station, which was by then 100 years old and reaching the end of its life, should be closed in favour of supply from the national grid. I understand from London Underground that that decision was reviewed several times before finally being confirmed through the award of the PFI contract in 1998. During that period, consideration was given to several options, including refurbishing the Lots road station.
	There seems to be consensus among experts that resilience is better secured by having access to the wider supply possibilities of the grid, rather than through over-reliance on an individual power plant such as that at Lots road. Well, we may yet have that debate, as a consequence of the investigations that will take place.
	I want now to deal with some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who has looked at these issues particularly closely. I never thought that I would live to hear her say that she associates herself completely—completely—with the comments of Conservative Front Benchers. It was a wonderful moment, but I should warn the House that she can be more than a little mischievous from time to time. I suspect that she was seeking to tease out of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) some firmer statements on Tory policy on electricity generation supply and demand. She is one of the House's most accomplished performers, and I want strongly to commend to some of the younger Members—on both sides of the House—the hon. Gentleman's decision not to take her on. I certainly would not do so.

Patrick McLoughlin: Stop grovelling!

Kim Howells: I am trying to answer the questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich concentrated, quite properly, on crucial issues such as passenger safety and the provision of constant electricity supplies to the underground.
	The PFI power contract was put out to tender in 1996 and was signed in 1998 with Seeboard Powerlink, which is owned primarily by Seeboard. The contract has been subject to safety and risk analysis. The PFI covers four main features: the provision of back-up supplies from a gas turbine generator at Greenwich; the provision of emergency battery lighting at stations; the purchase and supply of power from the national grid; and the operation, maintenance and renewal of London underground's high-voltage network.
	The PFI contract is drawn so as to incentivise Seeboard Powerlink's maintaining a high level of resilience and security of power supply. The PFI will provide a new control system, known as SPIDER—I do not know why—for London underground's power network. I am told that it will enable faster high-voltage system reconfiguration in the event of loss of supply from the grid.
	I want to reassure the House and the hon. Member for Croydon, South in particular that as part of its review of the handling of the power failure, London Underground will examine how its power PFI worked, and identify improvements that can be made to communication between it and Seeboard Powerlink, and between the latter and EDF Energy, which is the local distribution supplier. Indeed, that issue was also of concern to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). London Underground will particularly investigate its operational and customer service response to the power supply problems of 28 August—especially internal communications and the CCTV network, which the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) rightly noted was important. The evacuation protocol, which seems to have worked well on this occasion, will also be assessed.
	As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale reminded us, people got out safely and no one was hurt. We need to learn from what went well as well as from the difficulties. The reopening of stations and the restoration of services is also important. The electricity may be brought back on supply, but we have to ensure that no one is on the lines and that no part of the system will be damaged as a consequence of turning the juice back on. Communications with the world beyond the underground system will also be examined. We must ensure that everyone knows exactly what is happening to prevent crushes from crowds of people trying to enter stations on the underground when they should stay well out of them. Those are serious issues.
	London Underground's key problem, as several hon. Members have pointed out, is decades of under-investment. I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that the public-private partnership is delivering unprecedented levels of long-term stable funding to enable the tube to be brought up to modern standards. The Government are providing £1 billion a year for the next seven years. In all, the PPP will save more than £1 billion a year spent on maintenance and upgrades over the next 15 years. That will give the tube a chance to recover and to become a much better system. The underground, of course, remains publicly owned and is publicly accountable to the Mayor of London, and the private sector consortiums that are contracted to deliver the improvements face heavy penalties if they fail to do so.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services openly and candidly dealt with the hugely important issues that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale focused on about the future of electricity generation and supply in this country.
	Before I reach the requisite part of the winding-up speech, I want to add my praises—my hon. Friend would have done so if he had had time—for the hard work of London Underground staff—drivers, the station staff, the controllers and so forth—in handling such a difficult event. They did it very well indeed, particularly evacuating passengers from stations so quickly, and later getting the trains into the right positions to resume services as efficiently as possible.
	We should not forget the bus drivers and conductors who had to deal with the influx of passengers, nor the managers of the bus companies who instructed their drivers and conductors to accept tickets in order to help the thousands of people denied access to the tube to reach their destinations. It was a major exercise and it was done very well. The people working on the railways, who worked hard to ensure that services ran once the power was restored, should also be thanked. We often knock the transportation services in this country, but they are staffed by extremely professional and excellent men and women. In this instance, under exceptionally difficult circumstances, they did a tremendous job of ensuring that services continued.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I will take great interest in the lessons that emerge from the various reviews and will ensure that they are acted on. In the unlikely event of a repetition, we trust that London Underground will respond even better and restore services more effectively.
	In the few moments remaining, may I turn to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby? It is extremely important that the appropriate skills exist to ensure that the tasks can be carried out. Those skills are held by the existing highly knowledgeable and good work force, but my hon. Friend is right that we must incentivise young people to work in the sector. If we do not, many of the predictions of doom that we have heard in today's debate will certainly come to pass. That is a primary responsibility of Government and I assure my hon. Friend that I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to ensure that measures are taken to try to provide incentives for people to enter such employment.
	We have had an excellent debate today and I assure the House that we will learn the lessons of the outage that occurred on 28 August.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 332.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House regrets the problems that have recently occurred on the National Grid and the disruption that was caused particularly to transport services; further notes that the report published by the National Grid last Wednesday shows that the problem was not caused by under-investment on the network, shortage of capacity or its contractual relationship with any of its customers but rather by a local transmission failure; notes that security of supply is one of the key responsibilities of the regulator, that Ofgem is considering the incident in the light of the National Grid's licence obligations and will be reporting at the end of September; and further notes that the Government's engineering inspectorate will also be conducting its own investigation.

EU Constitution

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Michael Ancram: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the draft Constitution, presented by the Convention on the Future of Europe to the Inter-Governmental Conference on 20th June at Thessalonica, constitutes a fundamental change to the relationship between the European Union and the Member States and should therefore only be implemented if the British people have freely consented to it in a referendum.
	This debate is essentially about trusting the British people. It is about letting the British people decide, and Sunday's euro referendum in Sweden was a healthy and welcome example of the pitfalls facing Governments who think that they know better than the people. I regret the bullying way in which the Eurocrats in Brussels have responded to that decision.

Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: No, I shall make a little progress first.
	The Government's ruling out of a referendum on the proposed constitution displays a similar hectoring disregard for the deeply held views of the British people, and I therefore make no apology for returning to this subject today. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, as we know, support a referendum; serious commentators argue for a referendum; and the people demand a referendum. Ironically, it was the Government who created that demand. They introduced referendums to our constitutional diet and gave the British people a taste for them. Even before they took office, they were promoting referendums as a central part of new Labour's political culture. Since then, they have held 34 referendums—on devolution, on mayors and now on regionalisation, not to speak of the yet again, if not permanently, postponed referendum on scrapping the pound.
	In 1996, the Labour party was promoting the idea of referendums. As the then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, now Lord Robertson, pithily put it while arguing for a referendum on devolution:
	"Politicians should trust the people."
	The Government trust the people on devolution. They trust the people on London. They trust the people on mayors. They trust the people on regional assemblies. They trust the people—until this one, the big one, the one that really matters. The Government then suddenly stop trusting the people and say no; but the British people will not take no for an answer, and nor will we.
	The case for a referendum on the proposed European constitution is overwhelming. The principle behind holding a referendum is very simple: the draft constitution sets out to transfer sovereignty, both generally and specifically, from our national Parliament to the emerging political entity, which, in the Prime Minister's words, will be a European superpower.

Andrew Miller: Rubbish.

Michael Ancram: Those were the Prime Minister's words, not mine. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps read the speeches that the Prime Minister made in Warsaw in 2000 and in Cardiff last November, where he explicitly set out his desire to create what he called a European superpower.
	Sovereignty does not belong to Parliament or to the Government. Sovereignty belongs to the people. Parliament holds sovereignty in trust. Parliament can exercise sovereignty, but it should not on its own authority alienate it. If sovereignty is to be transferred, alienated or surrendered, it should be done only with the consent of the British people, democratically and freely given, arguably in the context of a general election, but ideally in a referendum. There will be many arguments as to what constitutes such alienation in the context of the coming intergovernmental conference. I believe that anything that reduces the powers of domestic national Governments, and thereby strengthens the powers at the centre, constitutes alienation. The draft constitution before us is full of such instances.

Mike Gapes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the powers of central Government of this country were significantly reduced under the Single European Act and other measures introduced in the past, and that there was no referendum at that time? Given the logic of his position, however, would it not be more honest to talk not about a referendum on a constitution but about a referendum on allowing the Conservative party to campaign, as most of its members seem to want, to get out of the European Union completely?

Michael Ancram: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reads the brief that his party produces for him. Helpfully, I also have a copy. It reads:
	"Clear dividing line between a Tory party determined to take Britain to the exit door of Europe and a Labour Government working in Europe".
	I say "well done" to the hon. Gentleman. He will get brownie points from the Whips for that. This document is wonderful. It says:
	"The Convention of Europe was set up to propose changes in the way the EU works with the expansion of the EU to 25 members from May 2004."
	If the Convention were only doing that, it would have done it very quickly. There is a lot more in the Convention report than that. The document continues:
	"No precedent for a referendum on EU treaty change".
	Even the Government, in the document that they produced as a White Paper the other day, accept that it is not a treaty but a constitution. That is the basic difference. Lastly—I will then finish with this document, as I would not want to steal all the lines of Labour Members—the document says surprisingly:
	"The Government believes there is a strong case for a single, coherent constitution for the EU."
	What happened to the Prime Minister's comments in Warsaw, I think it was, in 2000, when he said that there was no necessity for a single constitution or a single document? This document is a piece of propaganda, and I congratulate all hon. Members who are brave enough to try to make use of it.
	We were told last year that a referendum would be unjustified because the treaty would contain nothing of constitutional importance. I repeat: nothing of constitutional importance. It is only a written constitution, which for the first time explicitly enshrines the primacy of EU law. It is a constitution that sets up a European Presidency for the first time, a European diplomatic service for the first time, and a European Foreign Secretary to oversee it. If those are not constitutionally significant, heaven knows what is. Even the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who I am pleased to see in his place today, apparently agrees. On 1 April this year, he told the Foreign Affairs Committee that he was not saying that the European constitution
	"has got no substantial constitutional significance, of course it will have".
	For once he was right. Can we therefore now have the referendum that we were told we could have if there was anything of constitutional significance? Apparently, we cannot, because now that the constitutional significance criterion has been met, another hurdle has been quickly slipped into its place. The truth is that those criteria are cosmetic. The Government have set their face against a referendum not because the draft constitution does not merit one but simply because they do not trust the people. As a result, their defence of their anti-referendum position becomes more and more frayed with every passing week.

John Redwood: Is it not even worse than that? The Government will not hold a referendum on the pound and the euro because they know that they would lose it, as the British people do not want to give up that amount of power. They are therefore prepared to give up all the rest in this constitution, without a referendum, knowing that the British people do not want it. It would be the first case in history of there being a currency with no country to go with it.

Michael Ancram: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He points out that this Government, who talk so much about trusting the people, when it comes to the crunch do not believe that the people trust them, and are not prepared to put that to the test. He makes his point very well.

Jack Straw: Is the point made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) also the right hon. Gentleman's point? Does he believe that it would be a currency without a country?

Michael Ancram: I believe that there is no country called Europe at present, and if Conservative Members have anything to do with it, there never will be a country called Europe. At the moment, we are talking about a currency that does not have a country. The Swedes, in their wisdom, decided that that was not a game in which they wished to play a part, and if the Government were brave enough to hold a referendum on the same issue here, the British people would give them the same verdict.

George Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman, Malcolm Rifkind and I used to agree entirely on Europe—so much so that we wrote a letter to a newspaper together—but he has changed while I am consistent. He has not mentioned the other referendum, which was held in Estonia on Sunday. I was planning to ask him to condemn the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), Lord Lamont and all those MEPs for interfering in the affairs of another state. However, given that there was a resounding yes vote on joining Europe, will he send them to Latvia as well?

Michael Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman has a selective memory. The letter that he, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and I wrote, against the advice of the Whips on both sides of the House, called for a free vote because a referendum was not available and we believed that the representatives of the people of this country should have as much free judgment as possible. I still take that view even if he does not. We have talked about the views of certain Conservatives on Estonia. It is strange that I am instructed that the views of people such as those whom he mentioned represent our party's policy. I could start suggesting that the views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on Iraq are suddenly the Labour party's policy. Members of the Conservative party are free to express their opinions and I am here to explain the Opposition's official line.

George Foulkes: rose—

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Michael Ancram: I shall not give way because I want to make progress.
	The criteria that the Government have set are cosmetic. We were told in June that there was no need for a referendum because, according to the right hon. Member for Neath, who has sadly left the Chamber, the treaty was largely a "tidying-up exercise" and according to the Foreign Secretary, it was a "streamlining process". They were trying to get across the message that the constitution was not important and that it did not really matter. How may the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights in the constitution or turning justice and home affairs into a supranational rather than an intergovernmental matter be described as mere tidying-up or streamlining? That defence was ludicrous, and as the details of the draft constitution became clearer the idiocy of the defence became clearer and even now it has been dropped.
	Last Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary told the House that:
	"the proposals in the current draft treaty do not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states".—[Official Report, 9 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 174.]
	He said that there was therefore no justification for granting a referendum. The new test was a fundamental change to the relationship between the EU and its member states. However, at the same time, we learned from an interview published by the right hon. Member for Neath that behind the closed doors of the Cabinet room, the Prime Minister told his colleagues that:
	"the outcome of the Convention is absolutely fundamental. It will define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe, the prospects for the euro, and it would last for generations."
	If that is not a declaration that the constitution will fundamentally change relations between the European Union and its member states, I do not know what is.
	I thought that the right hon. Member for Neath might have been mistaken or that his memory was at fault, but the Prime Minister did not deny saying that when he was challenged in the Chamber last Wednesday. He was not being helpful to the Foreign Secretary when he said:
	"Of course the outcome of the convention is absolutely fundamental".—[Official Report, 10 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 324.]
	He used the word "fundamental" in the Chamber and when talking to his Cabinet colleagues. The last line of defence against the referendum has been washed away and the journey from "tidying-up"—the ludicrous first line of defence—to "fundamental" has been completed.
	The proposed constitution is on any view a step change away from a Europe of nations to a European political entity or, to use the Prime Minister's word, a superpower. The EU will have a written constitution, a legally binding charter of fundamental rights, a single legal personality and a five-year presidency. There will be explicit primacy of EU law, an EU Foreign Minister who is allowed to represent member states at the United Nations, a currency, a flag, an anthem and, eventually, an army.

Jack Straw: Of the many misconceptions that the right hon. Gentleman has uttered, one is completely and utterly untrue. A European Foreign Minister would not be allowed to represent the European Union member states at the United Nations, yet the right hon. Gentleman implied that France and the United Kingdom would lose their permanent seats as a result. That is simply not correct.

Michael Ancram: If the right hon. Gentleman would listen, he would know that I did not say that: I said that the European Foreign Minister would be able to represent the European Union at the United Nations. That is what the words in the constitution say; all the Foreign Secretary's wriggling cannot disguise that fact. I say to him again: if all this does not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states, what on earth does?
	More important, the constitution is, on its own terms, irreversible. Once one is in it, one cannot change it back again—it can be amended only in an integrationist direction. Uniquely among constitutions, it can be fundamentally amended by the executive decision of the Council of Ministers without further approval from national Parliaments or any need for new treaties. It has none of the checks and balances or restraints that one would normally expect to find in a constitution. I ask once again: if this is not a fundamental change, what on earth is?

Tom Harris: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may have misrepresented the Prime Minister's views when he quoted from his speech in Cardiff last year. He said, more than once, that the Prime Minister described Europe as a superpower. In fact, the Prime Minister said:
	"We fear—
	he was talking about British fears—
	"that the driving ideology behind European integration is a move to a European superstate, in which power is sucked into an unaccountable centre."
	Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should also have quoted what the Prime Minister said a few minutes later—that
	"we should understand that our opposition to Europe as some federal superstate is not a British obsession. It is in fact the reasonably settled view of most members of the EU".

Michael Ancram: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the Prime Minister said later in that speech: "We are trying to create a European superpower, not a European superstate." He made that distinction. Yet every time that I have mentioned the word "superpower" over the past six months, Labour Members have shaken their heads and said, "Not true." It is about time they started studying the speeches of their Prime Minister a little more carefully; otherwise, their chances of promotion will be severely damaged.

Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Ancram: I want to make progress, if I may. [Hon. Members: "Oh, go on."] I shall give way.

Teddy Taylor: I am grateful. We must get this clear. Is my right hon. Friend saying that if the Government, as they seem to want to, intend to force through this new constitution against the wishes of the British people, and without seeking their support in a referendum, there is no way in which future elected Parliaments or Governments will be able to do anything about it? We should not play at party politics, but realise that we are discussing a very serious situation.

Michael Ancram: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely essential point. This is a one-way street. When one signs up to such a constitution, there is no way back. That is why it is such a fundamental question that must be put to the British people.
	The best way of assessing fundamental change in the relationship between the member states of the Union is to examine the effects that it would have in practice. First, it is worth considering what we would not be able to decide for ourselves any more. We would no longer be able to decide on our own immigration and asylum policy; and we are to have our economic and employment policies co-ordinated—whatever that may mean. Secondly, we need to consider what we will, or can, be made to do against our will. Thirty-two vetoes are being given up, including those on judicial co-operation in criminal matters, establishing offences and penalties for serious crime, crime prevention, civil protection, intellectual property, and rules covering the self-employed. Those are all areas in which we are giving away and ceding our responsibility in the House to the European Union. The Government had better face up to that, as it is the reality of the situation.
	Thirdly, we need to look at rights that we have retained but which can be eroded without further reference to treaties or the consent of national Parliaments in future. Under article I-17, the European Union may endow itself with the necessary powers to deal with any area touched by EU power, from defence policy to border controls. We could have the imposition of a common foreign and security policy, the creation of a European army, economic co-ordination leading to fiscal harmonisation, all without the agreement of Parliaments or peoples or even the usual treaty-making process.
	All of those, whatever gloss is put on them by the Government, fundamentally change the relationship between the EU and its member states. We might have hoped that that would change during the forthcoming intergovernmental conference negotiations, but that is a false hope. Last week's White Paper clearly indicated that the Government have effectively swallowed the draft constitution hook, line and sinker, and that its reservations are cosmetic. There is no real threat of a British veto—the one negotiating weapon with which the Government should have gone into the IGC—either explicit or implicit if the so-called red lines are not met. We see that in the Government's new-found ambivalence about the legal enforcement of the charter of fundamental rights. Previously, we were told that that was a red line that they would not concede, but now we are told, "We will see what happens in the IGC and make our mind up at the end."
	One of the major lines of defence of British interests—the Government amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Neath at the Convention—have simply disappeared off the table. There was a Government amendment dealing with asylum, which the right hon. Member for Neath described as fundamentally important, but it has been dropped. The Government said that they "did not accept" the title of "EU foreign Minister" because it was misleading, but that objection too has been dropped, along with the bulk of the 200 amendments that were tabled at the time.
	When the right hon. Member for Neath said that there was no constitutional significance in the draft constitution, he was talking a language quite different from that of his colleagues in Europe. The German Minister of Foreign Affairs said:
	"We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the word historic."
	He went on to say:
	"It is the most important treaty since the formation of the European economic community."
	The Danish Prime Minister put it crisply:
	"What is at stake is so new and big that it is right to hold a referendum."
	Valery Giscard d'Estaing, when asked about the question of a referendum on "Breakfast with Frost" on 25 May, said:
	"For France, we normally have a referendum when we change the constitution."
	When asked about a British referendum, he said that
	"we are not demanding a referendum, but we will be very pleased if there is."
	He obviously regarded the draft as a change in the constitution.
	Given all the evidence that there is a significant change in our fundamental relationship with Europe, will we get our referendum? All the qualifications set by the Government in their own words been met, but a last desperate defence has been concocted. According to the Prime Minister last Wednesday, those
	"who call for a referendum want it as the first step in a two-step process to get us out of Europe".—[Official Report, 10 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 327.]
	I remind Labour Members that that is simply untrue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said in Prague on 10 July,
	"The Conservative Party does not want Britain to leave the European Union. We want to make it work."
	Indeed, the logic of the Prime Minister's attack is mind-boggling—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary would do well to listen because he will have to explain this to his colleagues abroad. The logic of the Prime Minister's attack is mind-boggling, and suggests that withdrawal is the agenda of all those who seek referendums on the draft constitution. Does he really believe that that is the reason why more than 80 per cent. of the British people want a referendum? Does he really think that 87 per cent. of his own constituents who want a referendum are part of some anti-European conspiracy? Is he saying that the Spanish Government, who are voluntarily to hold a referendum, are suddenly motivated by anti-Europeanism? Or that the Netherlands and Italy, in considering referendums, are somehow involved in a two-step process to get themselves out of Europe? Was President Chirac seeking to take France out of Europe when he said,
	"I am logically in favour of a referendum. It would be the only legitimate way".
	Those Governments know what the constitution is about, and they are facing up to the need to consult their own people about it.

Denis MacShane: rose—

Michael Ancram: I am coming to the end of my remarks.
	The Prime Minister's attack on those who call for a referendum is laughable. It is an insult to the British people, it mocks their genuine desire to have a say and it trivialises what, in the rest of Europe, is a serious debate. That debate is about reforming Europe with the consent of its peoples. It is about involving people in decisions about their own future. Substituting puerile accusations for genuine argument indicates only fear of what the people might decide.
	That is the real key. Unlike us, and unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister and the Government do not trust the British people. They are prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the voters, and to drive through fundamental and irreversible reforms of the EU without seeking the consent of the British people. That is simply wrong. In their hearts and even, reportedly, in the Cabinet, according to one newspaper yesterday, the Government know that that is wrong.
	The right hon. Member for Neath almost offered a referendum next June by way of the European parliamentary elections. In June this year he told the BBC that
	"if people don't like what they get, they can vote against the Government in the European elections next year."
	He went on to say:
	"Then the people will decide."
	He knows, and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary know, that none of the arguments against a referendum holds water any more. The British people will not forgive a bullying rejection of their right to decide on something so fundamental, so irreversible and so far-reaching. The message of the motion is clear and simple: let the people decide.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the Government's commitment to keeping Parliament fully informed of the progress of the IGC negotiations, including through the publication of a White Paper, and to continued intense Parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Constitutional Treaty; believes the proposals from the Convention on the Future of Europe are a good starting point for discussions between the elected governments of the EU's member states; further believes that, as the proposals do not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the EU and its Member States, and the role of national parliaments is strengthened, there is no reason to depart from the precedent set by previous governments, which rejected referendums on previous constitutional treaties; and notes that it will be for Parliament to decide on whether it should become part of UK law."
	With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I proceed to deal with the debate, I should like to pay a brief tribute to Anna Lindh as this is the first opportunity that I have had to do so in the House.
	As the House knows, Anna Lindh was murdered in a Stockholm department store last Thursday, 11 September. For all of us who knew her, Anna was an exceptional individual. She earned huge respect in Sweden and well beyond its shores for her commitment to her principles, for her great skills and for the transparent honesty with which she pursued her cause. Her death is a tragedy, above all for her family, for she leaves a husband and two children of school age. I shall attend the memorial service in Stockholm this Friday, and I know that I will carry with me the sentiments of the whole House in conveying our grief and our condolences to her family, her friends and the people of Sweden.
	The heart of the case presented by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), as we heard, is that the changes proposed in the current draft of the European Union's constitutional treaty are of such a scale that a referendum to endorse them is necessary. We take a different view, and I want to use the opportunity this afternoon to explain why.
	What the Convention proposes in its draft treaty does not represent a radical break with the past. It emphatically does not take us down the road to a European superstate. As I will explain—and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago suggests otherwise—the text does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between member states and the Union. If anything, the draft tilts the balance towards the European Council and national Governments.
	The European Union Committee of the House of Lords has been assiduous in its examination of the draft proposals, producing 14 reports. Its report in May examined texts to give national Parliaments an effective role for the first time in European Union draft legislation. In commenting on those texts, which were very similar to the final treaty, the Committee concluded:
	"it is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift from the Commission in favour of the Member States if the proposals . . . are adopted".
	[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mutters that the Committee members are unelected, with the implication that they know absolutely nothing about these matters. Some of them have never served in an elected position, but they have something to say and understand about the European Union. That includes Lord Williamson, former secretary-general of the European Commission, and Lord Hannay, the former British Government permanent representative in Brussels. The list of members—there is no sign of any minority report—also includes the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, an individual not known as a raving Euro-fanatic, formerly Mr. Norman Lamont and now Lord Lamont. Evidently, having at least examined the text with care, he concluded that the proposals in the draft Convention will, if they are adopted, shift the balance of power from the Commission in favour of member states.
	The purpose of the treaty is much more prosaic than the confection that the right hon. Member for Devizes has whipped up this afternoon. It seeks to consolidate much of the European Union's existing constitutional framework, which extends over at least four separate and overlapping treaties, and introduces new measures that aim to equip the Union with the institutions and decision-making processes that are needed to cope with the demands of 25 members. As I explained to the House last Tuesday—he refuses to face up to this point—the enlargement of the European Union is the engine of these changes. It should be as plain as a pikestaff that a Union whose institutions were designed to operate with six members has been creaking in trying to operate with 15, and would find it very difficult to operate practically with 25.
	I shall deal in a moment with some of the key arguments that the right hon. Gentleman advanced in pursuit of his claim, but I should like first to pick him up on one comment, which, if it were true, would certainly be an argument for a referendum. We all heard him say that the treaty is irreversible. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] "Irreversible" was the word that he used, and there is approbation from Opposition Members. However, that is simply not the case. It is untrue and shows that he has not applied himself to the texts. Article IV-7 of the draft treaty, as reproduced on page 148 of the Command Paper, sets out very clearly procedure for revising the treaty establishing the constitution and spells out that amendments can enter into force only after being ratified by all the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
	Moreover—I shall return to this point later—there is one measure that has not featured in previous treaties and that will be of huge importance to members of the true faith of the Tory party: explicit provision allowing for the first time a member state to withdraw from the European Union if it so wishes. In the past, there was an objection to the fact that the method for withdrawing was unclear, albeit that the document is a treaty among member states. There is now the most explicit provision through which, over a two-year period, if the British Parliament decided to withdraw from the European Union—in my judgment, it would certainly need a referendum to do so—it would serve notice and withdraw.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. When there is an EU Foreign Minister under the constitution, will not he or she be the boss and the British Foreign Secretary the office boy? Will not the important people around the world want to see the EU Foreign Minister, knowing that the British Foreign Secretary has to go along with anything agreed by consensus in Brussels and initiated by that Minister, who will be the man or woman with the power?

Jack Straw: It comforts me that the Opposition have to invent arguments about the nature of the text to oppose our actions. Shortly, I shall deal in some detail with the contents of the draft constitution and compare them with those of draft constitutions or constitutions on which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) voted 13 years ago. He voted against a referendum on a specific draft constitution.

Graham Allen: Does not my right hon. Friend have the slightest anxiety that every time we take a step towards European integration without the British people's understanding or consent, we may unwittingly be preparing the ground for what he fears most: a British public who would ultimately be amenable to withdrawal?

Jack Straw: If I believed that my hon. Friend's supposition was correct and that we were moving further towards European integration, I would accept the burden of his argument. However, if he examines the draft treaty and the likely amendments, I do not believe that it is possible to argue that it takes us towards European integration.

Bernard Jenkin: What about President Chirac?

Jack Straw: The idea that President Chirac of France would relinquish control of his foreign and defence policy is ludicrous and gives the lie to the nonsense from the right hon. Member for Wokingham.

Bernard Jenkin: The President of France wants to eclipse NATO and establish an autonomous foreign and defence policy in Europe. The Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that he wanted NATO to remain pre-eminent in European security. Where is that written in the European constitution?

Jack Straw: I shall happily turn up the reference. Conservative Members display much defeatism, as if they have no idea that a European Union of 25 members contains many more active supporters of NATO than people who do not want to be involved in it or its Defence and Security Committee.

Patrick McLoughlin: Was it right for the President of the Commission to say yesterday that because Sweden had the cheek to reject the euro, it would have less power in the councils of Europe? Is it right for an unelected official to tell an elected Government that a country that has made a specific decision will have less influence in Europe?

Jack Straw: I do not believe that it is right and I disagree with President Prodi, as I am entitled to do. I agree with the burden of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Although it is obvious that countries that have not joined the euro cannot be members of the euro group, I resist the idea that they lose influence over every aspect of EU policy. That is palpably not the case. I spoke earlier of my good friend, the late Anna Lindh. Sweden could exercise considerable influence in Europe's councils, and not only on my subjects of justice, home affairs and economic policy, because of the strength of its case and the allies that it was able build up. I believe that we can do that, too.

John Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: I shall do so later.
	Let me deal with some of the specific objections raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes. He recently said that the draft treaty would lead to the creation of a "political union" because it was based on plans for a five-year presidency; that it would impose legally binding rights on all European citizens; that it would make European laws superior to national laws—he added today, "for the first time"—and that it would lead to the creation of a fully fledged diplomatic service.
	In voicing his concerns about the creation of a political union, the right hon. Gentleman is fighting the battles of the past, because that term does not appear anywhere in the current draft. Nor, indeed, has it appeared in any of the European Union's constitutional treaties dating back to the 1957 treaty of Rome. But it was through Maastricht—the treaty for which he voted and on which he spoke so eloquently—that the European Community decided to turn itself into the European Union and to create the concept of European citizenship. Even on the most malign reading of the new treaty, all that it does in that respect is to replicate Maastricht's language. A fair reading of it, however, shows that the overall balance tilts more positively towards the member states.
	It is worth recalling that the right hon. Gentleman gave the Bill to ratify Maastricht his resolute support when it passed through the House more than a decade ago. Furthermore, at that stage, he was not a pressed man but a Back Bencher. He therefore volunteered to do so out of a sense of conviction. In telling the House at the time that he feared the drastic consequences of rejection, he said,
	"I fear that those who say that we should turn our backs on Maastricht are taking a tremendous risk—the black risk of a centralised Europe, the risk that Europe will go on without us if necessary, and even if we are part of it, our colleagues will say, 'You've had your chance. In future you can take it or leave it.' "
	His commitment to Maastricht was so absolute that he was prepared, if necessary, to sacrifice British sovereignty—something that I would never do. He was willing to contemplate what he termed a country called Europe. I ask my hon. Friends to weigh his words, although the speech that he made is quite difficult to follow. Each sentence seems to be being weighed with care, especially by the hon. Member for Stone . In that same debate, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	"I said at the beginning that I did not want to be part of a European superstate."
	Fine. He went on:
	"Equally, I do not want to find myself in a country that is outside a European superstate, with our industries unable to penetrate it." —[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 343.]

Michael Ancram: We have been through this before. What I was saying then is what I am saying now: I do not want to see a European superstate. I do not want us to be in one—which I would hate—or outside one, because I believe that such a superstate would be highly damaging to the interests of all the countries of Europe. That was the position that I held then, and it is the one that I hold now. That is why I want to stop a European superstate. The right hon. Gentleman keeps digging up quotations from the past, but in 1983 he was doing something that I have never done. He was arguing that we should withdraw from the European Union. He has changed his mind, has he not?

Jack Straw: I am perfectly happy to deal with that point; I have done so in the past. What we have not heard from the right hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "Deal with it!"] Yes, I supported a manifesto that proposed that we should withdraw from the European Union, and we got the answer that we deserved at that election. I also supported a manifesto at the last election that spelled out our negotiating mandate for the inter-governmental conference, and did not promise a referendum. It did, however, say that we would stand up for Britain. Our policies in that manifesto were supported, and we are implementing them.
	I shall go on quoting what the right hon. Gentleman said at the time of Maastricht, because he has never stood up and said that what he was saying then was wrong. The truth is that, on any analysis, he knows that Maastricht represented a more significant change to the powers of the Union and its institutions than does the current draft treaty. Maastricht enshrined commitments to a single European currency and to a common foreign and security policy. It also introduced many new treaty provisions, subject to qualified majority voting. Yet, despite the contents of Maastricht, the right hon. Gentleman opposed calls from within his own party for a referendum. He voted against such a referendum, as did the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
	By contrast, the draft constitutional treaty drawn up by the Convention is much less far-reaching. Indeed, the House of Lords European Union Committee has recognised that the text seeks to strengthen the role of member nations. It states explicitly for the first time that competences not conferred on the Union by member states remain with them. Article 1.5.1 of the draft specifies that the
	"Union shall respect the national identities of the Member States, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and self-government."
	That is hardly the language of political union.

William Cash: As there as so many scrutiny reports from the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons, will the Foreign Secretary be good enough to point to any statements such as he has referred to in the House of Lords that have come from the European Scrutiny Committee in this House?

Jack Straw: As a matter of fact, I cannot. That does not mean that the view of the European Union Committee in the House of Lords is wrong. It produced many more reports scrutinising different parts of the text than did the equivalent Committee in this place. It is uncomfortable for the hon. Gentleman, because the facts are getting in the way of his prejudices, but the reason it came to that view is that within the draft constitution, in an article and a protocol, there is provision by which national Parliaments, including this House and the House of Lords, will for the first time be able to play an effective role in studying draft legislation—

William Cash: Very minor legislation.

Jack Straw: I do not believe that it is minor, because if a third of national Parliaments decide that they do not like a proposed draft law on the basis that it offends principles of subsidiarity, they will refer it back to the Commission.

William Cash: And it will not do anything.

Jack Straw: That is not true. That is linked with the necessity for there to be at least 60 per cent.—by population—of votes in favour of a proposal, so if a third of national Parliaments object to a draft law it is likely to be revised or rejected.

John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Wilkinson: rose—

Jack Straw: No, I will not give way. [Hon. Members: "Give way."] I shall give way in a moment.
	I shall deal with the first specific claim made by the right hon. Member for Devizes, which was that the draft treaty will result in the creation of a five-year presidency of the European Council. That is one of his central objections, and one of the things that he says will lead to a European superstate. It is true that the draft constitution would create a five-year presidency of the European Council, but I presume that he is suggesting that the post is tantamount to the establishment of an EU Head of State.
	It is bizarre that a party, which has raised no objection to the principle of a presidency of the European Council during 18 years in government, now sees it as a threat to British sovereignty. There has always been a presidency, and this proposal is not about the further accretion of powers at the centre. Quite the opposite. There is now a problem with a rotating presidency. A senior political figure serving a term of two and a half or five years as Chairman of the European Council and responsible to Heads of State and Government—not to the Commission—would bring much needed coherence and continuity to the very body that, above all others, serves the interests of the nation states.
	The right hon. Gentleman is not thinking through his position. The current system of a six-monthly rotating presidency is a recipe for discontinuity, and in practice it weakens the Council of Heads of State and Government and it strengthens the Commission, which is exactly the opposite of that which he seeks. The result of that is to weaken the role of member states in the Council, which is why the opposition to the proposal for a full-time president has produced some weird bedfellows. On one side of the bed are the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party, and under the same duvet are the European Commission, President Prodi, the Liberal Democrats and every barking mad federalist across Europe, all of whom oppose this policy. I know that the Conservative party is now thinking about being more inclusive and caring, but I did not realise that it went this far. Conservatives should think about the company they keep before they come up with such ludicrous propositions.

Michael Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that among those whom he describes as our bedfellows are many of the smaller nations that are joining the European Union for the first time? They believe that the five-year presidency will undermine intergovernmentalism and be damaging to them.

Jack Straw: That is not what they believe.

Michael Ancram: It is what they say.

Jack Straw: It is not what they say either. I have had the benefit of listening to them. What they believe is that a full-time presidency might undermine the position of the Commission, which they see—wrongly, in my view—as a protector of small member states. Some, though by no means all, of those smaller states believe in the Commission and would like to be part of a European superstate. That is the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I, too, listened for 18 months to what those countries were saying, and my right hon. Friend is entirely right. Their point is that a rotating presidency makes the European Union more in touch with the people of individual countries. It does not accomplish that completely, but it goes some way towards it. A permanent five-year presidency—the addition of another presidency in Brussels—will, on the other hand, make the EU even more remote from the people of Europe, and do the opposite of creating a more democratic Union that is in touch with the people. That is why the smaller countries, and my right hon. Friend, oppose the absurd proposal to create yet another presidency in Europe.

Jack Straw: There is already a presidency. It is called the presidency of the Council. The question is, how do we make it effective on behalf of member states?
	The logical conclusion of what the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Conservative Front Bench are saying is that member states will be weakened within Europe and the Commission strengthened. That is why the European Commission—of fantastical proportions, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—is most vocal in opposing a full-time presidency. It is not possible for a single presidency serving for six months to co-ordinate effectively the policies of 25 member states—which, yes, will sometimes be opposed to those pursued by the Commission.

John Bercow: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: Yes, for the last time.

John Bercow: Never have I heard so many words provide so little justification over such a long period for denying the people of this country the right to make a decision on this matter. Why does the Foreign Secretary not just admit that he opposes a referendum not on ground of constitutional principle, but because he thinks the British people do not understand the issues, or thinks they might reach a different decision from him—or both?

Jack Straw: That does not happen to be my view.
	The right hon. Gentleman's second claim was that the draft treaty would impose "legally binding rights" in relation to the charter of fundamental rights. If the Opposition are to be believed, here and elsewhere, that document will impose a heavy burden on British business and provoke chaos in our judicial system. It will not do that, however. For one thing, those who read the charter will see that it is a straightforward statement of British and, dare I say, conservative values, including such astonishing propositions as the right to a fair trial. Its legal implications are also much more prosaic—thanks to the changes that we negotiated in the Convention—than the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe.
	The most important changes that we have secured are in title VII,
	"the general provisions governing the interpretation and application of this Charter".
	Article II-51 makes it clear that the charter
	"does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined in the other parts of the Constitution".
	It does not, therefore, grant any new powers to the constitution.
	Like the rest of the draft treaty, the section on the charter may be revised further in the intergovernmental conference. As I spelt out to the House this time last week, we reserve the right to make a final decision on the incorporation of the charter in the light of the overall picture that emerges.
	The right hon. Gentleman's third claim is that the draft treaty will lead to a political union because it is based on—I am quoting what he has said outside the House—
	"an EU law superior to national laws".
	Using the most awful weasel words, the right hon. Gentleman said that this would for the first time set out the primacy of European law.
	The right hon. Gentleman is sufficient of a lawyer to know that that is simply not the case. It is totally untrue, and frankly he ought to be ashamed of making such claims. We can argue about other aspects of what is in the draft constitution, but for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and claim that it will assert for the first time the primacy of European law, thereby clearly implying that no such primacy currently exists, is frankly a deceit.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: No, I will not.
	The right hon. Member for Devizes knows very well that the whole argument 31 years ago as to whether we should join the then Common Market concerned the fact that this House would have to cede the primacy of our law to that of the European Union.

Michael Ancram: rose—

Jack Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	For that reason, section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 was passed, establishing that primacy. It states:
	"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment"—
	by this House
	"to be given legal effect".
	The right hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.

Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary has raised this important point on several different occasions. I just want to remind him of the case of Macarthys v. Smith, in 1980, of which, as a lawyer, he will doubtless know. Lord Denning said:
	"If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it"—
	he was talking about the European treaty—
	"then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament."
	Lord Denning was actually saying—this is a distinction that the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate—that the EU treaties signed in 1972 created a limited primacy because of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and of our own courts, and because of the 1972 Act. What this document proposes is making European law's primacy explicit and enshrining it in a constitution in full for the first time. At the moment, Parliament has what could be described as a residual sovereignty. The provision in the constitution would abolish it.

Jack Straw: That is completely not so, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. In the small print of his comments, he actually admitted that the primacy of European law was enshrined by section 2(2) of the 1972 Act, and by a number of leading cases involving the European Court of Justice—with which he is very familiar—including Costa v. ENEL, and that of Simmenthal. Such cases established clear primacy. What the constitution is doing—it is doing no more than this—is to replicate within the draft treaty what is contained in case law and in section 2(2) of the 1972 Act.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's point about repudiating a treaty, under the terms of this treaty the House can of course repudiate a treaty whenever it wants. Under this treaty—not Maastricht, the Single European Act or the treaty of Rome, but this treaty—for the first time explicit provision is made whereby this Parliament can legislate to repudiate a treaty. He needs to understand the consequences of his argument. Is he now saying that European Union law should not have primacy over British law in areas of European legal competence? Let us be clear: if he is saying that, whether he likes it or not Britain would have to withdraw from the European Union, because it would be impossible for any British Government to operate within the European Union.
	The fact is that all international treaties take primacy over national laws—the system of international law could not function otherwise. For example, how could the European Union single market—a creation of the Conservative party when it had a bit of sense—work if each member state could take its own decisions on the rules of the game, regardless of the rules to which it had already signed up? How could we guarantee British business a level playing field if other member states had the right to erect national tariff and non-tariff barriers, without any redress for British business? That is the natural consequence of what the right hon. Member for Devizes is suggesting.

Richard Shepherd: British statute takes precedence over treaties. That is established in our own courts and asserted by them. Where there is an explicit declaration by the House and Parliament through statute, it takes precedence over treaties, which are based on merely prerogative power.

Jack Straw: I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but that is simply not true.

Richard Shepherd: It is what is important.

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman reads the leading case of Shah and Islam, which is connected with the interpretation of the UN convention on refugees of 1951, he will see the argument set out in every detail. It provides a clear exposition of the fact that, when a country signs up to an international treaty, that treaty takes precedence over national law, as long as a national Parliament decides to remain a member of the treaty organisation. Conservative Front Benchers simply misunderstand the point and I am waiting for the right hon. Member for Devizes to answer my question about whether the Conservatives are now asserting—

William Cash: rose—

Jack Straw: I shall give way to the organ grinder in a moment.
	Is the right hon. Member for Devizes asserting that, if the Conservatives were in government, they would not accept the primacy of European law in respect of European competences?

William Cash: The Foreign Secretary has to answer the question that he posed. What is the purpose of implementation of a treaty through an Act of Parliament if it is not, in the European context, to turn European treaties into domestic law?

Jack Straw: The purpose of the Act of Parliament through which we joined the European Union was to say—with respect to the 1972 Act—that all future legal decisions of the European Union—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) needs to listen to what I am saying. All future enactments were given legal effect and recognised accordingly without further enactment by the House. [Interruption.] I find the degree of ignorance exhibited by Conservative Front Benchers astonishing.

William Cash: Let us examine what appears in the Foreign Secretary's own White Paper. Paragraph 104 states:
	"When the IGC starts in October, it will cover . . . the way we govern ourselves."
	How does the Foreign Secretary answer that?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is confused, and I am not surprised that the Conservatives are in such a mess when they lack even a basic understanding. An initial Act of Parliament ratifies a treaty. That happened in the accession treaty of 1972, in the Single European Act, the Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties, and it will happen again if we recommend the current draft EU constitution.

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

Jack Straw: No, I will not give way.
	Under various Acts, and particularly the European Communities Act 1972, we accepted the primacy of European Union law. I note that the right hon. Member for Devizes has still not explained the Conservative position. He made a point about primacy, so is he saying that the Conservative party is now opposed to the position that it has supported for 30 years—the primacy of the EU in respect of EU law? Is that the right hon. Gentleman's point? He has no answer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is evident that the Foreign Secretary is not giving way.

Jack Straw: Let me return to another issue raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes—[Interruption.]

David Heathcoat-Amory: Article 10 is not just about the primacy of EU law, but the primacy of the constitution. The right hon. Gentleman cannot pretend that the problem is inherited from a previous treaty, because we have not hitherto—before what is currently proposed—had a constitution. How does the Foreign Secretary square the expressed and asserted primacy of the constitution over member state law with the supremacy of the House?

Jack Straw: It is because it is inherent in our membership of the European Union. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw from membership, and that is a natural consequence of the petition being advanced by many Opposition Members. I square my position by going back to the central issue of our membership of international organisations. The House decided—

David Heathcoat-Amory: But this is a constitution.

Jack Straw: The constitution is no more than a treaty labelled "constitution". It is a treaty that we shall ratify in the same way as any other treaty.

Richard Bacon: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, I am answering the point made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
	This House, along with the other place, decides to enact legislation through which we join an international organisation. In doing so, we accept key obligations for as long as we remain in membership. If we decide to withdraw, by statute, we withdraw from those obligations. While we are members of the organisation, we accept the obligations.

Teddy Taylor: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, I will not give way because others wish to speak in this debate.
	Another of the Opposition's invented concerns relates to the alleged extent of the Union's common foreign and security policy. Last week, the hon. Member for Stone thought that he had discovered the Achilles heel of the Government's case, when he alighted on a reference in the draft treaty, in article 15.2, that calls on member states "actively and unreservedly" to support the Union's common foreign and security policy and
	"to refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests."
	When he confronted me with that during a hearing before the European Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday, I suggested that he reacquaint himself with the language that his party had signed up to at Maastricht. The then Government agreed that:
	"The Member States support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."
	The former Government also agreed to
	"refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union."
	In article 15 of the same treaty, member states agreed that they would
	"ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions."
	There is nothing new in the text on the common foreign and security policy that was not in the Maastricht treaty.
	Indeed, as Lord Howe pointed out in a debate in the other place last week, the original proposition that members of the European Union should
	"endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a common foreign policy"
	was a British product. Lord Howe said that it was
	"handed by my noble friend Lady Thatcher to Chancellor Kohl in my presence on 18th May 1985"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 179.]
	Baroness Thatcher also said later that year that it is
	"in the interests of all member states to act together if we can on certain matters because we are very much stronger by so doing."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 439.]
	That is the principle behind the common foreign and security policy and I fail to understand why the right hon. Member for Devizes and his party now object to it.

Ian Davidson: The Foreign Secretary is making a fine speech scoring points off the Tories, but does he accept that that is too easy and certainly is not sufficient to justify the Government's refusal of a referendum to the British people? He mentioned earlier his condemnation of barking mad federalists, but that is ironic, given that many sit both alongside and behind him. Why are the Government afraid of giving the people of Britain a referendum?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the wholehearted support that he has just offered me and I cherish the compliment with which he began his intervention. If we felt that the draft constitution represented a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between ourselves and the other member states, we would of course put forward the case for a referendum.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of losing.

Jack Straw: It is not about fearing something. I have nothing to fear, let alone from the Conservatives. It is an issue of principle. We have had, and will continue to have, referendums when we join or leave—the issue in 1975 was whether we should leave—an institution or when we seek to create a new institution. We have never held a referendum to change the powers of institutions to which we belong. The previous Conservative Government consistently refused to do so—for very good reasons, in my judgment. I voted with the right hon. Member for Devizes and 12 other members of the present shadow Cabinet against a referendum on Maastricht. On any analysis, the arguments then used against a referendum apply still more strongly against the current set of propositions.
	In view of the time, I shall begin my closing remarks. I accept that there is one area of change in the draft treaty, and that is in respect of justice and home affairs. However, that is very much a British agenda, and the Government have long advocated better co-ordinated action against organised crime, terrorism and illegal immigration. These are shared problems that require shared solutions—as I proposed, for example, at a conference in Avignon in October 1998.
	The draft treaty would help us to achieve that, for example by speeding up decisions through greater use of qualified majority voting. However, we are not talking of grand new areas of Union activity. The Union already acts in these fields. That decision was made at Maastricht, which brought co-operation on justice and home affairs within the Union. The treaty of Amsterdam then extended co-operation on immigration and asylum issues.
	Some of the Convention's proposals in the area of criminal procedural law could result in more significant change, but I have made it clear—in this House and in the White Paper—that these proposals would not be acceptable to us. We support the provision of minimum standards at EU level in some areas, such as access to an interpreter to protect British citizens facing criminal proceedings in other member states. However, we will oppose in the IGC any measures that would undermine our system of common law and criminal law.
	It would be rash to predict the outcome of the negotiation in the IGC. What I can say, however, based on lengthy discussion with my EU counterparts in Italy 10 days ago, is that no member state will be seeking to surrender its national sovereignty.
	As the IGC gets under way, there will no doubt be new ideas coming forward, some of which we will want to resist. Tomorrow, the European Commission will publish a white paper on its proposals. The Commission shared some of its suggestions with Foreign Ministers at our informal meeting 10 days ago. Let me make it clear that some of those ideas are not acceptable to us, nor to many others, not least any proposal that would remove Parliament's final authority over changes to international treaties. We are opposed to that, and we shall make that clear.

Teddy Taylor: rose—

Jack Straw: For all the froth and fury, what we are witnessing today is a Conservative party not so much raging against the proposed constitutional treaty before us but against the EU—and, more particularly, Britain's place within it. The most impassioned comments of the right hon. Member for Devizes—complaints about the primacy of EU law, a common foreign and security policy, and many other matters—dealt with proposals that were not dreamed up for the future by the Convention. Those matters are existing elements of the EU and were signed up to by Conservative Governments—in 1972, 1986 and at Maastricht in 1992.

Mark Francois: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, as I am coming to a close.
	Those were the issues that were before the House in 1992, and the House came to the decisions that we know about. The difference today is that the small group of zealots—I remember them very well— who did their best to bring down the previous Conservative Government in 1993 are now in charge of the party. And the greatest zealot of them all—the hon. Member for Stone—is now writing the script for the right hon. Member for Devizes.
	I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Devizes, who denied that the Conservative party was intent on a policy that would withdraw a Conservative Government from Europe. He should have seen the face of the hon. Member for Stone as he tried to assert that the Conservative party remains actively committed to Europe. We know that the hon. Gentleman would like Britain to be outside Europe. We also know that the leader of the Conservative party said, not many years ago, that the public was ready to go for Britain repatriating its powers from the EU, and that that could eventually mean pulling out. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) also went on to say:
	"I welcome everything that moves us closer to the point where we can say 'No' on Europe.
	The truth is that the Conservative party today—and it should have the honesty to spell this out—is aiming to dismantle the existing EU and to undermine Britain's place in it, irrespective of the damage that would be done to Britain's interests, jobs and influence.
	In his heart of hearts, I suspect that the right hon. Member for Devizes recognises the hopelessness of that cause. He knows that none of the 24 other countries that will be attending the IGC over the next few months remotely supports what he says; nor do they recognise the illusory utopia of "associate membership" to which his party is increasingly attached.

Teddy Taylor: rose—

Jack Straw: There is a clear divide: between a party determined to take Britain out of Europe, undermining our living standards and our position in the world, and a Government who are working for Britain in Europe, to deliver peace and prosperity. I urge the House to oppose the motion and to support the amendment.

Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary was visibly moved a little while ago when he paid tribute to Anna Lindh. He can most certainly be assured that when he attends her memorial service he takes with him the sympathy of the whole House and the sense of horror that some feel that such an event should have taken place in a society that prides itself on openness, tolerance and accessibility to politicians.
	The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who spoke on behalf of the Conservative party, sought to introduce a Scottish constitutional concept to the debate. He argued that sovereignty rested with the people. That is an entirely Scottish constitutional concept, as set out—as he will be well aware—in the case of MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate. However, it is not a British, or United Kingdom, constitutional doctrine, at least not since the Union of the Parliaments in 1707. Furthermore, I am not sure that the concept assists the right hon. Gentleman in the case that he wants to make today. If Parliament is sovereign, it is entitled to repeal the 1972 Act and, as a consequence, the results of the passing of that Act would be rendered nugatory.
	That was always the answer to those who said that there was no mechanism for withdrawal from either the European Economic Community or the European Union. If Parliament, which cannot by the constitutional tradition that applies here bind itself for the future, were to choose to repeal that Act, the obligations contained in it and the treaty on which it was based would simply fly off. Despite his determination to try to import a Scottish concept, about which I am pretty sympathetic, the right hon. Gentleman may care to consider whether it sits entirely favourably with the general position that he seeks to adopt on sovereignty.
	There is a distinction in that the Convention proposals provide for an express right of withdrawal, but my view has always been that there was at least an implied right of withdrawal, because of the doctrine of Parliament's constitutional supremacy.

Teddy Taylor: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy. Unlike the Foreign Secretary, he has given way.
	Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the provision allows for withdrawal only if the majority of member states in the European Parliament agree and if there is an acceptance of all the conditions laid down over two years of negotiations? The idea that there is an open exit clause is absolute rubbish. One can only get out if the others agree and if one accepts all the conditions.

Menzies Campbell: I would read the provisions in the Convention proposals along with the principle upon which I have spent a little time addressing the House. Taking the two together, there is a right of withdrawal and, in my view, sovereignty is not irreversibly prejudiced.
	We have discussed this topic on a number of occasions recently, to the extent that I cannot help but believe that a whole industry may grow up dedicated to an exegesis of the speeches made in this and previous debates. In my case, I hope that it will be found that there is little of academic interest as I intend, as far as I can, to say what I have said on at least three previous occasions in the past two or three months.
	First, I believe, as does my party, that the United Kingdom should be at the heart of Europe. In that regard, I pray in aid the Prime Minister and his predecessor. I believe, notwithstanding the events of the weekend, that it is in the long-term interests of the UK to be a member of the single currency. I also believe that the current Convention proposals do indeed raise issues of constitutional significance in relation to the charter of fundamental rights, the passerelle clause and, indeed, the right to withdraw, about which we have just heard some exchanges.
	I further believe that, if the Convention proposals survive the IGC in their present form, there ought to be a referendum of the British people.

William Cash: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: I want to finish this part of my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
	It is my belief that, as a matter of principle, a referendum is necessary when a Government bring before the House proposals that involve a major shift in control, any transfer of significant powers from member states to European institutions or any alteration to the existing balance between member states and those institutions.
	I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). [Interruption.] For the first time in my political life, I appear to have satisfied the hon. Gentleman, but I am not banking on it.

Tom Harris: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the case for a referendum would be undeniable if the current draft made it past the IGC without amendment. Given that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has clearly stated the Government's red lines, if the Government were successful in preventing us from going over those red lines, would the Liberal Democrats agree that there is no case for a referendum?

Menzies Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would have observed that I chose the charter of fundamental rights, the passerelle clause and the right to withdraw, none of which, I understand, will be subject to Government objection. Indeed, when the Foreign Secretary introduced the White Paper just a few days ago, I said that I thought that the so-called red lines drawn by the Government were entirely right and apposite and that defence, foreign affairs, social security and our own resources should remain the exclusive responsibility of the House.

Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: I wish to make some progress if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
	On this occasion, therefore, we shall support the motion, not because I wish to be part of some outer Europe or, indeed, to renegotiate in its entirety the European settlement, but because I want the United Kingdom's role in Europe to have the endorsement of the people of the United Kingdom. In particular, I want to re-energise the support of those generations who have no knowledge, even at second hand, of the carnage of the two world wars, which so disfigured Europe and which were an overwhelmingly powerful motive in the minds of those who began with the fledgling European Coal and Steel Community. I also want to inform better those who fail to understand the enormous political significance of enlargement, accomplished in 14 brief years since 1989, with the collapse of the Berlin wall and the subsequent collapse of the Warsaw pact.

Jack Straw: I simply want to make it clear, as we do at paragraph 62 of the White Paper, that we intend to seek changes to the passerelle clause. I have made that clear before.

Menzies Campbell: I shall wait to see what those changes amount to. I shall now refer to the charter of fundamental rights because the Government have been rather coy about that issue, and it might be helpful to the House to know precisely what is the meaning of the final paragraph of that section of the White Paper.

David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of information, the Government, who tabled more than 200 amendments to the draft constitution in the Convention, did not table an amendment to the passerelle clause, so, yet again, the Foreign Secretary is saying one thing here, but he did not follow it up with trying to amend the draft constitution when he had the opportunity to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that, by implication, the Government have accepted that damaging part of the draft constitution.

Menzies Campbell: It might be said to be my night, because I have satisfied the hon. Member for Stone and now the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

John Bercow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: No, I will not give way. [Interruption.] No, I do not believe in the principle of third time lucky.
	It is essential that we have some stability in Europe. We had the treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Before that, we had the Single European Act. We had the treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and the treaty of Nice in 2001. It is as though Europe has been living through a permanent cultural revolution. There really ought to be some stability both in the institutions and the arrangements that are made for the regulation of European Union activities.
	The enlargement to which I referred a moment or two ago is, as the Foreign Secretary rightly says, the stimulus for the Convention and its proposals. It is technically true that we could have enlargement without a fresh treaty. It would be a pretty peculiar union if we did, however, and it would essentially be a recipe for sclerosis, obstructionism and, ultimately, instability. Furthermore, those who see conspiracy at every turn—perhaps that has not been evident in this debate, although it features from time to time in the other place—should ask themselves whether it is conceivable that Estonia, which endorsed the principle of EU membership at the weekend, having broken out of the bonds and the yoke of communism, would voluntarily enter a conspiracy that would have the effect of denying it the freedom that has been so hard won.
	Is the draft perfect? Of course it is not. On subsidiarity and proportionality, it is too weak and requires strengthening. There ought to be a red card rather than a yellow card, if I may use the colloquialism of the time. On freedom of information, I still do not believe that the Convention proposals go far enough.

John Bercow: Notwithstanding the Foreign Secretary's assurances about his future good intentions in relation to the passerelle clause, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it significant that the Foreign Secretary made no such commitment to seek improvement in the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol, even though that protocol imposes no obligation whatever on the European Commission to scrap inappropriate legislative proposals?

Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary did not mention that topic today, but I have at the back of my mind that there may be provision in the White Paper. Certainly, on many other occasions when we have discussed this topic, I believe that the Foreign Secretary has dealt with the question of subsidiarity and proportionality, but, as I believe that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I have agreed in the past, talking about it is not enough. Measures must be found that ensure that the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality is applied and, in particular, applied rigorously. I have said already that in so far as the Government make no concession on defence, tax, social security or own resources that is entirely appropriate.
	At least some of the debate has centred on the White Paper. I hope that it will not be thought churlish if I say to the Government that it is a great pity that we have not had a full-scale debate on it in Government time. I detect a certain amount of coyness in the Government's position as reflected in the White Paper, as I think that only 12 pages out of 60 deal with detailed consideration of the text. That coyness is particularly evident in paragraph 103 on page 39, which I raised with the Foreign Secretary during his statement following the publication of the document. It states:
	"The Government will make a final decision on incorporation of the Charter into the draft Constitutional Treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC."
	When I described that language as delphic, the Foreign Secretary was unwilling to agree. Perhaps he might agree, however, with the description "elliptical". It is by no means clear what the Government's position is on the matter. The fundamental question—the word "fundamental" gets thrown about on these occasions—is whether the Government would be willing to veto the ultimate product of the IGC if they did not receive some kind of satisfaction with regard to that particular provision. For my part, I have no quarrel or difficulty with the rights that are contained within the charter. They mirror to a large extent, but not entirely, those provisions contained in the European convention on human rights. The distinction, as I have said previously in the House, is that the Government went to the country on a manifesto in which they said that they would repatriate into domestic law the right to vindicate rights under that convention, so that people would no longer need to go to Strasbourg but could seek to raise human rights issues in United Kingdom courts. On that, it is reasonable to say that the Government had a popular mandate, but they have no such mandate on the charter of fundamental rights. Given that that raises constitutional issues, it is one of the reasons why a referendum is important.
	I confess to some difficulty understanding the Government's attitude to a referendum in general. There is no doubt that the process has gone beyond the tidying-up to which Ministers made reference earlier.

Edward Leigh: On the wider political point, it is quite interesting that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats agree. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman speculate on whether there is concern in the Government about what happened in Sweden and the fact that the European public are apparently increasingly convinced that Europe is run by business and political elites? Whether one is a Eurosceptic or a European enthusiast, surely there is a strong case for a referendum to overcome those doubts and give the Government an opportunity to make their case.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman would find careful scrutiny of the Swedish campaign and the decision that was taken in Sweden rewarding, because much evidence suggests that many people who voted against the proposal were worried because they thought that the European Union provided far too much opportunity for the operation of the market. They were worried about the social standards in Sweden that are paid for by substantial tax rates—they are higher than those in this country—numbers of public sector jobs and that the role of the state would be substantially curtailed if the country became part of the single currency.

Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: In a moment.
	Of course, that position would be somewhat inimical to the one that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and his party would prefer to adopt and indeed that of which the Prime Minister tried to persuade the European Union as a result of the Lisbon summit. Does the Minister for Europe wish to intervene? I appear to have satisfied him, so perhaps I should quit while I am ahead.
	If the Government are not moved by principle, how about being motivated by pragmatism? Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, imagine the disappointment in the editorial suites of certain newspapers if the Government announced that they were willing to hold a referendum, or the deep depression that would centre over Smith square? The Government should think again. They have been prepared to change their mind on the question of a referendum. Without prior warning or consultation, they determined, on a referendum, devolution to Scotland, which John Smith had described as unfinished business. There is still time for the Government to recant, but in the meantime we shall support the motion.

George Stevenson: I suppose that one's approach to the debate and the motion on the referendum will be affected by whether one believes that the draft constitution and the intergovernmental conference are simply tidying-up exercises and nothing to worry about because much has been agreed prior to the IGC and the constitution will simplify matters, or whether one believes those who say that the IGC and the treaty are of fundamental importance. I say at the outset that I take the latter view, not because I believe that it is impossible to make the argument that the process is a tidying-up exercise but because we are dealing with a treaty yet missing a fundamental issue: the European Union is a process. Events within the process determine the way in which the EU will move on in the next generation and, in my humble opinion, this is one such event.
	A single currency is not needed for a single market—I have never believed that, and we have proved it—but it is needed for a united states of Europe. Why do we need a constitution? A treaty similar to those of the past could have dealt with matters such as enlargement, changes to the Commission and the five-year presidency of the Council. We do not need a constitution for that, but we need one for a united states of Europe.
	Those are the fundamental flaws in this afternoon's debate. Understandably, we are concentrating on the constitution, but, with respect, the Government are making a mistake in ignoring what has happened in the past. The Single European Act and Maastricht were the most important milestones in the development of the European Union. It is rather strange for Ministers to try to destroy Conservative arguments by saying, "We don't need a referendum on the constitution because the Single European Act and Maastricht were much worse, and the Conservatives did not have referendums on those." I do not follow that logic. We should look to consult the British people on the constitution because it is a milestone in the development of the European Union, and if we are prepared to face up to the compelling logic of that process it is clear that it has only one objective—a state of Europe. It is no good having a policy in the Labour party of saying that we are opposed to such a state, given that every step of the way we are bit by bit, piece by piece, putting in place the building blocks for it.
	That is what we should be discussing today. I do not diminish the importance of the subject of the debate, but I fear that we are missing the target by a mile, as I suspect that the British people are beginning to understand. In view of that, how can we sustain the idea of a referendum on a single currency, which I support, yet not have a referendum on the other building blocks that are necessary to create a state of Europe? We are not being honest with ourselves or with the British people, and it is about time we were.
	As far as I am aware, this situation is a first. I have been a Member of the European Parliament, as have hon. Friends sitting next to me, but I cannot remember a European constitution having been presented before. The Government clearly understand the importance of this IGC, because they say in the White Paper that it will affect all our lives and the way in which we govern ourselves. I cannot identify issues that are much more serious than that; the British people should therefore be consulted.

Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend not accept the words of our Foreign Secretary today that the constitution is effectively all the previous treaties rolled into one and that that constitutes about 80 per cent. of the text? The word "constitution" is just a label put on those treaties.

George Stevenson: I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, who has served in the European Parliament. I do not have to answer that question, because he knows the process that is going on better than I do—he served in the European Parliament more recently than me. One of the first things with which we were presented in 1984 when I became a Member of the European Parliament was a draft constitution of the European Union, by Altiero Spinelli. The arguments and objectives that we are now considering are not new. If Spinelli were alive today, he would be rubbing his hands with glee because his dream of 1984, which was too far reaching for us then, is now becoming a reality. It is not all being realised, not by a wide margin, but the constitution is an important step in the process.
	I shall move on to another concern that I tried to raise the other day in my question to the Prime Minister—public perception. For years, we have tried as politicians to generate interest among the electorate in the European project. No matter what our perspective, we have all agreed that the turn-out at European parliamentary elections is abysmally low. We have failed to generate that interest, most importantly because the British people feel that these matters are the fiefdom of the political elite. I fully accept the results of the Swedish and Estonian referendums on Sunday, which demonstrate that while the people of Europe, particularly the British, are prepared to accept criticisms of apathy or lack of interest, they are no longer prepared to be ignored. If we ignore them on these vital issues I must tell the Government whom I support and whom I am, in the main, proud of, that we shall suffer. The gulf between the political elite—the people driving the agenda forward, whether nationally or internationally—and the people whom we serve is widening at a rate of knots, and that frightens me to death.
	We can lose all sorts of things. We can lose elections because of sleaze and spin, but if we start to lose the faith and trust of the people whom we represent nationally and internationally, that is a recipe for a disaster. If we are serious about moving the European project forward and debating that in the House, a failure to hold a referendum now will alienate our people even more. In many ways, we should not be looking at the draft constitution, but should be considering what will come next. As night follows day, there will be another treaty, which will build on the constitution. We should consider what will happen in three or four years' time when another treaty comes along. As surely as night follows day, however, if we do not consult the British people now, they are not likely to trust us ever again when we do go to them on something like the euro. Not holding a referendum is therefore not in the Government's interest.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. I am sure that he agrees that every time we get to one of these milestones and do not achieve the informed consent of the British people we lose their trust. The worst enemies of the European Union are those who claim to support it but who are not prepared to consult the people whom we are here to serve.

George Stevenson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We got away with not holding a referendum in 1986 and in 1992. I am arguing as strongly as I can that we will not get away with it again. We have been rumbled—[Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe mumbling. I said "rumble", not "mumble". There is a widespread feeling in my constituency—I am not saying that it is true—that the Government want a referendum only when they can win it. That may or may not be true; only the Government know. But that is people's perception, and in politics, as every right hon. and hon. Member knows, perception is an extremely powerful force.
	I hope my contribution has been of some interest to my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. I have tried to express my views as positively as I can, though not uncritically. If we do not bite the bullet, we shall suffer as a result. I wonder whether we shall ever regain the trust of the British people so that we can move forward as we all want, not only in terms of national policy, but as regards the European Union, which is so important to us.

Stephen Dorrell: The House listened with considerable sympathy to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). It will not surprise him to know that I approach the subject from a rather different starting point, but I arrive at a similar set of conclusions to those that he has just enunciated to the House.
	I am an unapologetic pro-European. I believe that the United Kingdom was right to join the European Union, that our future is intrinsically tied up with the future of our partner countries in the EU, and that John Major was right when he said that Britain should aim to be at the heart of Europe. So far, for those who have followed my views on these subjects over the years, no surprises, but I think that those of my closest political friends who argue against a referendum now are profoundly wrong. If we are to proceed with the kind of changes envisaged in the draft constitution, it is essential that we first secure the support of the electorate, not just of this country, but of other countries in the EU—support expressed in a referendum. I shall set out the reasons why.
	The first is the simplest one to explain. It seems likely that before we get to the end of the process, the majority of other EU member states will put the proposal to their electorates in a referendum. I do not know what language I shall use in Charnwood to explain why France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands will have referendums, yet my constituents, who put me in Parliament to represent their interests, will be denied the opportunity to vote on the proposals—an opportunity that is likely to be granted to the majority of other citizens of the European Union.

Denis MacShane: On what authority does the right hon. Gentleman say that France has decided to hold a referendum?

Stephen Dorrell: I base my assertion on the words quoted earlier in the debate, the prediction of President Chirac, and the fact that when they introduced the euro, the French Government had a referendum—

Denis MacShane: indicated dissent.

Stephen Dorrell: I am sorry, but they did. The Maastricht treaty was endorsed by referendum in France by a very tiny majority. Given that history and the French tradition of referendums, in particular under the Gaullist party, it would be a brave Government in France who sought to carry the proposals through against the advice of a Gaullist President, without a referendum.

Tom Harris: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he did not know how he would explain to his constituents why this country is not having a referendum, whereas other EU countries are. What excuse did he give to his constituents back in 1992 for the fact that there was no referendum on the Maastricht treaty, whereas France did have one?

Stephen Dorrell: It might not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I want to develop the argument addressing precisely that point. However, I wanted to begin with the simplest point—it seems likely that, whether or not a referendum occurs in France, there will be a substantial number elsewhere in Europe.

Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Dorrell: I should like to make progress.
	This is not just a matter of saying "me too", as there is an important issue of principle in saying that the member states choosing to take the referendum route are wrong. The traditional view of British Governments—from Ted Heath onwards—of opposition to referendums is wrong, and I want to explain why. I believe that referendums have an increasingly important part to play in modern democracies. In every western democracy, we face an increasing problem of divorce between our voters and the political elite—exactly the point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made.
	Voters increasingly feel that the political elite do not take them seriously and that they think that democracy is about one collective act every four or five years, after which they should be left to get on with it. Increasingly, they are rebelling against that interpretation of how democracy should work. If we insist on maintaining our traditional commitment to a Burkeian representative democracy with only very occasional reference to the electorate through general elections, I believe that, as increasingly important decisions are taken by that route, we shall undermine the legitimacy of those decisions and ultimately put at risk the stability of our institutions.
	I think that referendums will, and should increasingly be seen, as the means by which voters are engaged directly in decisions that affect them, but from which they currently feel increasingly divorced. That principle is most simple to apply in dealing with what are avowedly constitutional questions. It is one type of issue when a controversial decision is taken within a constitutional settlement, but a different one entirely when the question is not how constitutional powers are used, but who should have those powers. That is why, when a document described as a constitution is presented to me in a political climate that should increasingly embrace the principle of referendums, I find it easy to say that it should be the subject of a referendum.
	That general principle is particularly apposite in the context of the current European debate in this and other European countries. Every observer of the European Union recognises that there is what is referred to in Euro-jargon as a democratic deficit. Anyone who is concerned about the operation of the European institutions must recognise that there is not only a divorce between voters and political institutions and politicians in general, but an especially acute version of that divorce between voters and institutions in Brussels. The tendency among some of my European friends is to say that that problem is easy to solve and can be dealt with by introducing enhanced powers for the European Parliament, but that is to avoid the subject, not address it.
	The problem is that voters do not feel engaged with the institutions that have been set up to exercise power on their behalf in Brussels. The divorce that is a general problem with modern politics is a particular problem when applied to the institutions of the European Union. It is for that reason that, even if the Foreign Secretary's argument that there is nothing new in the treaty were true—I do not think that it is—it would not be a sufficient answer to the case for a referendum, as there is an urgent need to re-engage voters in what is happening in their name in the institutions of the European Union.
	I have made the case thus far on the ground of principle, for which I make no apology. However, anyone who is engaged in practical politics should assert a principle and consider the practical consequences. It is blindingly obvious that if the constitution were subject to approval by referendum, it would be less likely to pass in its current form. I want to make a couple of comments about that.
	First, it is a genuine mystery why people appear to expect the constitution to pass in its current form, given the sense of increasing willingness in the rest of Europe to contemplate subjecting it to a referendum. The history of getting electorates elsewhere in Europe to approve such documents by referendum does not support the view that the constitution is likely to pass unchallenged. It would therefore be doubly absurd for the British electorate to witness the fall of a constitution that we did not like at referendums elsewhere in Europe that we were denied.
	The proposition that the constitution would be less likely to pass if we introduced the hurdle of a referendum is hardly a reason to draw back. Surely if we are interested in re-engaging the British electorate with the European process, acknowledging that the constitution would be likely to fall at the referendum hurdle should redouble our determination to tackle the reason for that. We should deal with such questions seriously rather than simply saying, "It's all frightfully difficult and we'll avoid the questions altogether."
	Surely if we are to continue to develop Britain's role as an active member of the European Union we need to re-engage the public in the form of European Union that we want to create. It is instructive to consider what we would have to do to set out down that road. It is sad that the short answer is probably that if we achieved the purpose of the new constitutional framework—I should prefer to call it a new treaty for the European Union—as approved by referendum, we would have to start again.
	We would have to start again the process on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was engaged on the Convention. We would need to produce a document that more closely reflected the rhetoric about a union of states rather than the continued development of a set of institutions that were born in the political culture of the 1960s. The document would need to be focused much more sharply and demonstrate to the voters of this and other countries in Europe a clear-sighted commitment to providing added value on trade, the single market and the environment. European co-operation on such matters has a serious purpose. We would need an equally clear determination to withdraw the developing tentacles of the European Union from subjects on which its legitimacy is increasingly challenged by me as well as my constituents.
	In the context of the modern, decentralised Europe, I do not understand the necessity for European legislation that aspires to tell me that I cannot work for more than 56 hours a week. That is an absurd extension that goes way beyond the common agenda that should be the shared purpose of all European Union member states. Most important, a redrafted document should include a genuine commitment to make accountable the power of the institutions in Brussels to the voters to whom they should be responsible. Accountability in the political cultures of all European Union member states can be realised only if it is exercised overwhelmingly through their institutions. That is how political power in Europe is currently held accountable.
	It is profoundly unlikely that such a document could be written by a Convention chaired by an octogenarian former French President whose political instincts were formed in the 1960s. What is needed is a new view of the institutions required for a new, more consumerist, more individualist, and more market-oriented Europe. That is the kind of document that would sail through a referendum in this country and others in Europe, too.
	I favour a referendum, first, because other countries are holding them; secondly, because it is right in principle to hold them; and thirdly—and probably most importantly—because a referendum would be the best way to reverse Europe out of a cul de sac and force on the political elites a requirement to move in a more benign direction.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am glad that the Government have rejected the calls for a referendum on this issue; they were absolutely right to do so. It has already been pointed out by Labour Members that the previous treaties into which this country has entered were put through without any proposals for referendums by the then Conservative Government. One can only conclude, therefore, that the present calls for a referendum by the Conservatives are nothing less than opportunistic. At least the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) had the grace to look a tad embarrassed when some of his previous statements were read out to highlight the change in his position in so few years.
	We must also remember that it was not only the amending treaties that were not subjected to referendums at the instigation of the Conservative party when it had the chance to do so. The actual decision to join the European Union was not initially the subject of a referendum either. It was, of course, the then Labour Government who allowed the voters a referendum on that issue when they came to power.
	What is particularly staggering about the present Conservative approach is that the treaty of Rome, to which we signed up in 1972, contained a commitment to moving towards an ever-closer union, and every amending treaty since then has reiterated that commitment, yet now that we have a treaty that replaces that commitment with a different formulation that strengthens subsidiarity and gives member states more rights and the ability to have a greater say in the European process, the Conservatives want to oppose that reform.
	The member states will gain from the current proposals, and the larger member states in particular are likely to gain. I know that my hon. Friends the Ministers could not possibly say that, but hon. Members will know that criticisms of the Convention have come not only from the federalist wing but from the smaller states in the European Union. I welcome the fact that the member states, particularly the larger ones, will have the ability to express their views more strongly and effectively through the European Union mechanisms.
	When I see the opportunism of the Conservative party on this issue, I am convinced that its strategy is now motivated—at least for a significant number of its Members in this House—by a desire to block the reforms of the European Union and an attempt to prevent changes that would allow it to work more effectively. The objective of that strategy, in some quarters of the party, would be to lead us to total withdrawal from the Union, or at least to a redefining of the Union so that Britain became part of an outer circle of member states.
	That is precisely the kind of development about which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) expressed concern. I believe, however, that he and his colleagues are playing into the Conservatives' hands by supporting the undermining of the European Union in the way that he has done today.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House during the long and lengthy progress of the legislation on the Maastricht treaty, but Mr. Brian Gould MP, as he then was, introduced new clause 57, which sought a referendum. The Liberal Democrats supported that new clause.

Mark Lazarowicz: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to refer to what happened in the past, but now he is playing into the hands of the Conservatives, who are seeking to diminish the role of Britain in the European Union. That was not the position of the majority of Members previously.
	Voices from the Labour Benches have been calling for a referendum. I accept that those Labour Members and the Liberal Democrats are not motivated by a wish to undermine the European Union, but the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) showed the danger of the position that he is taking. As he said, in two, three or four years there may be another amending treaty. Does he believe that every time there is even the slightest change in the European treaties there will have to be a referendum? He may not take that position, but if we went down that road it would be impossible to avoid the argument for a referendum every time there was even the slightest change to one of the European treaties.

George Stevenson: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is no. I can think of occasions since we joined the Common Market when referendums should have been held: the European Single Act, the Maastricht treaty and this proposal. I referred to building blocks and milestones. There will be another treaty, and we will have to examine it to see what effect it may have. I do not accept that every small change should necessarily be subject to a referendum, and I have never argued for that.

Mark Lazarowicz: The problem with my hon. Friend's formulation of the argument is that he may not see a minor change as a milestone, but others may see it as such or, more likely, represent it as a fundamental constitutional change. The entire British political debate on European Union membership would end up being dominated by a never-ending series of referendums, pre-referendums and post-referendums, which would have the precise effect of making our participation in the European Union an impossibility and would lead to the ungovernability of the EU, which I am sure is the motivation of at least some Conservative Members.
	I agree with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that a dangerous gulf is developing between the European elites and the peoples of Europe. Every politician in every Parliament in Europe must recognise that, and must draw conclusions for the operation of our political systems. This problem is not unique to European politics: it is a feature of politics even at local level, as turnouts in local elections frequently prove. There is undoubtedly disenchantment with the European political process. There are many reasons for that. I am not one of those who always blame the media for problems when politicians are not very popular. However, when it comes to the issue of Europe, the diet in some parts of the media of continual Europhobia and of refighting the battles of the second world war is hardly conducive to mature and sensible political debate.
	Much more significant than the role of some sections of the media is the fact that we are now living in a dangerous world. Many people are fearful for the future, and worry about the direction of their own country and the wider world. It is not surprising that in such a climate there is a tendency in some quarters to go for the tried and trusted political solutions rather than to take new directions and find new ways of organising international relations. That tendency is more likely to develop, given that many international organisations—not just the EU, but the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations as well—are seen to be failing to meet many of the challenges that they face.
	In my view, however, the way to overcome the alienation of the European peoples from the European elite is not to unleash the never-ending series of referendums implied by the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. We need a twofold approach. First, it is for those of us who support active participation by this country in Europe and European institutions to get out there again and sell the benefits of EU membership—the jobs, trade opportunities and rights for consumers and workers that it has brought us. We must send that message more strongly, emphasising the gains from membership and the dangers that would result from the withdrawal or disengagement favoured by the Conservatives.
	Above all, we need a European Union that works more effectively and meets the challenges of the time. Following the changes in eastern Europe in the 1990s, many Members will have been struck by the fact that the banner displayed by demonstrators in those towns and cities as they moved towards democracy was most commonly the flag of the European Union rather than their own traditional national flags. That was because they saw the EU as the hope for the future of not just Europe as a whole, but their individual countries.
	As we all know, the hopes placed in Europe by many of those peoples in the 1990s were dashed. The failure of the European institutions vis-à-vis the former Yugoslavia highlights the inability of European structures to deal with the challenges of that time. We can trace much of the disenchantment with the current European arrangements to that failure of the European Union and European bodies to respond to the challenges posed by civil war in the former Yugoslavia, and to the changing political and economic structure of Europe from the 1990s onwards.
	Given all that, it is more important than ever for the European Union to be made to work more effectively. The changes proposed by the Convention are necessary for that to happen. It is because so many Conservatives do not want the EU to work effectively and to succeed that they oppose those changes. The issue today, therefore, is not just our continuing membership of the EU; it is whether we stay in the EU or travel down a road that would lead inexorably to our withdrawal in the not-too-distant future.

Ian Paisley: I do not think most Members who oppose the Government's present policy of not holding a referendum are interested in slight changes. We are interested in a fundamental change.
	I remind the House that deceptions have come from Europe time and again. I have no problem with my European seat, as I received the most votes ever cast for an MEP in my area, so it is possible for me to engage in a real debate about this issue. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) said that we wanted the slightest changes to be subject to a referendum. The constitutional charter of fundamental rights, which in the past had no legal force, will now have full legal effect. When this proposal was first mentioned, however, the Prime Minister told us that it would have no binding force of that kind—that it was only a declaration. Some declaration, today! That is how the ordinary people have been deceived.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Paisley: I promised not to use too much time, so the hon. Gentleman will have to be quick.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. How many people in North Antrim have said to him, "Well, I'm not very happy about this charter of fundamental rights"? How many have said, "We don't need a constitution", or, "We should at least have a referendum on a constitution"? How many people know what is in the constitution? How many people care?

Ian Paisley: They do care, because I keep them informed. As the Member for that constituency, I tell them what Europe is up to. We need to feed people the facts, and the fact is that this issue is fundamental. It is not a petty matter to tell the people in one breath that this is only a declaration, and then to enter into a thorough programme to turn it into a law that will be applied by a court that is entirely outside this country. The time has come for this Parliament to say, "We are appointed to rule the United Kingdom, and before we can part with any authority we must know how we can deal with wrong decisions coming from Europe." We do have wrong decisions coming from Europe, and everybody knows it.
	In order to become part of the new constitution, we are going to duplicate the European convention on human rights. The matter will go the European Court of Justice, and there will be an overspill of much legislation and much argument. How will that benefit the people of this country?
	In the past week, we have had an argument about Sweden. Some were saying that the unfortunate murder of the Swedish Foreign Minister would change the people of Sweden, but they had an issue to deal with and their minds were not to be changed. That issue was concern about their country, regardless of the pressures that were applied. Mr. Prodi had the cheek to say, "What has Sweden done! It has put itself outside the heart of Europe." What right has he, an Italian, to tell another country that it has put itself outside the heart of Europe? The Swedish people exercised their democratic rights. People are entitled to those rights, and they must be contested for.
	Certain issues—I raised them in a previous debate—are conveniently forgotten, namely the constitutional and religious issues at the heart of each nation. We have heard not a word about them. They have been glossed over because they lead to controversy, and the Europe of today does not want to talk about controversial issues. So we need to have this debate. If the people of these islands want this new constitution, why do we not seek their support for it? Certain Members of this House say that the people want it, so let us find out whether they actually do. If the Prime Minister were convinced that he could win such a referendum, we would have it, but he is not.
	The euro gives rise to problems far worse and more dangerous than just the single coinage, which I am against. We are dealing with matters that are at the heart of centuries of development of democracy in this country. We have to take a stand, and the day to do that is when we say, "Let us put the question to the people." As democrats, we will have to accept it if the people vote for it. However, I have learned that, in Europe, we always get rigging. The British public are being refused a say in their own political destiny. The Government of our country are still resisting a referendum on the constitution, and it seems that thousands of citizens from continental Europe may get the chance to vote on whether we in this country should have the single currency. According to the Financial Times of 3 August, 725,000 EU citizens are being negotiated with, so that they can vote on an issue that has nothing to do with them. If they belong to Sweden, let them vote in Sweden, but why should we add to our numbers on the electorate almost a million voters to swing it against what many of the people of this country want? That is not democracy at all; it is rigging the answers. The House should be aware of that and take a stand.
	Let us see the negotiations. Let us hear what the country and the Government are going to do. The Government have asked the questions, so how are they going to answer them? If the Government say, "We want this" and Europe says, "Well, you are not having it", will the Government cave in? That is what we want to know. Will they make a stand anywhere along the line on that issue? I say to the Government that they need to take a stand on this issue and they need to make it speedily, because we are drifting into a position in which ordinary people do not want to talk about it because they do not trust us. When trust between Parliament and the people disappears, the result will be anarchy.

Jane Griffiths: Time is short, but I should like to add a few remarks to this important debate. I should like to quote a former Prime Minister who said:
	"I am the first to say that on many great issues the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice. I want to see us work more closely on the things we can do better together than alone. Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it be in trade, in defence or in our relations with the rest of the World."
	That Prime Minister was, of course, Margaret Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher, and the speech was the one she made in Bruges. It is highly relevant to our debate today. On great issues, the countries of Europe should speak with one voice. That is particularly important when we reflect on why we are debating the draft constitution and why a draft constitution or treaty exists at all.
	Next year the 15 members of the European Union become 25. A Europe that was divided in 1988 will now come together again at last. The countries of central Europe will come back into the heart of the European family. That is a historic change, which is why we are having today's debate. As hon. Members have said, the rules and treaties agreed when there were six, nine or 12 member states have been difficult to make work when we are 15, and they will not work with 25. That is why we, as Europeans, have had to return to the treaties and associated issues. That explains the draft constitution and the draft treaty. We are not changing our constitution or our nation. There is no proposal to do that, so there is no need for a referendum. It is unnecessary.
	What has been the response of Margaret Thatcher's party to the changes? Have they joined all good Europeans in welcoming the historic event of the coming together of Europe? Are they pleased that Europe is one again? No. Their response to one of the most important events in European history is to carp and to nitpick. They have opposed referendums in the past and their natural position is to continue to oppose them. I find their stance today to be in bad faith, which is what we Europeans must not have. We must have good faith and work together.

Richard Spring: May I first associate my colleagues and myself with the remarks made by the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) about Anna Lindh? It was indeed a terrible tragedy for a remarkable politician and a personal tragedy for her family. We all feel powerfully moved at this time.
	At the heart of this debate is the issue frequently raised by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the current Leader of the House: how do we reconnect the peoples of Europe with the EU, how do we return to them a sense of ownership, and how do we rid them of the sense that the European project is being driven inexorably and undemocratically by the elites of Europe? Indeed, on the Foreign Office website we are reminded that at the heart of the Convention's considerations was the reconnection process, to make the EU's institutions more effective, efficient and democratically accountable, thus increasing transparency and simplification.
	Well, we know what has emerged. The question is how what is proposed achieves those key objectives. How will that sense of ownership be returned to the citizens of the member states? Most importantly, can the draft constitutional proposals be significantly amended to achieve that? How can the public express their legitimate views?
	In the foreword to the IGC White Paper, "A Constitutional Treaty for the EU", the Prime Minister confirmed that Governments had said that the treaty
	"will be the starting point for negotiations."
	However, the Foreign Secretary appeared to suggest that the essential text had been agreed. At the IGC, many European leaders certainly do not expect or favour substantial changes. It is worth remembering that the Prime Minister, in his Warsaw speech, originally rejected calls for a single, legally binding document called a constitution, and called instead for a charter of competences. In an excellent speech, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) recalled that sentiment.
	So the Government's difficulty is now simply one of trust. As the former Italian Prime Minister and Convention delegate, Lamberto Dini, has observed,
	"Anyone in Britain who claims the Constitution will not change things is trying to sweeten the pill for those who don't want to see a bigger role for Europe. The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives, beginning with the Human Rights Charter . . . After that it will bring changes in many other areas. Eventually the Union will be able to make legislation of its own. It will become an institution and organisation in its own right."
	Joschka Fischer made a similar comment, when he said
	"We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the name historic."
	That is indeed the case.
	So we have a problem. There is absolutely nobody of any consequence who agrees with the Government's interpretation of the impact of the constitutional treaty. The simple starting point to remedy the sense of alienation that so many British people have from the EU and its powers is to tell the truth, and thus give the debate true legitimacy. If people believe that they are being told lies, invariably some will simply switch off or, more disastrously, take on extreme postures.
	For example, let us look at the charter of fundamental rights. We heard that it would not be incorporated into the treaty, that it involved no new set of enforceable rights, and that it was not legally binding. It is now in the treaty, game, set and match. All the way through, other European leaders have made it clear that it would be incorporated and have powerful legal resonance, but the British repeatedly said that the reverse was the case. There is a legitimate argument about all this, but the starting point must be honesty. The idea that what is now before us at the IGC is of no constitutional significance is just untrue, and it ill serves the Government to say otherwise.
	At the heart of the problem in the relationship between this country and the EU has been our almost total lack of influence under this Government. It would be inconceivable that the substantial budgetary rebate, the creation and driving forward of the single market and the opt-out on the single currency—so welcome to our people—could ever have happened under this Government, whose policy on Europe appears to be no policy at all. They are just carried along in the slipstream of others. What really significant part of the constitutional package before the IGC was driven by the British Government? It was not the written constitution, which they originally opposed. Nor was it the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights, the EU diplomatic service or the collapsing of the three pillars.
	Before the Convention, European leaders and Governments clearly set out their stall—their vision and view—about what an enlarged Europe should look like. It was others who drove this agenda, certainly not us. It has been a cataclysmic failure of British nerve and influence that Britain has been on the sidelines of the debate. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the former Minister for Europe, proposed amendments to the Convention that were thrown out with monotonous regularity.
	At Nice, a campaign should have been started to see off the important constitutional changes. Similarly, in six years not one power has been returned to the member states and our national Parliament in the name of subsidiarity—a principle instigated and fought for by a British Government who talk so freely about the democratic deficit.
	However, we are where we are, and the policy of denial continues. I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who spoke so tellingly. We know that Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg and Spain will hold referendums, and that Portugal, Italy, France and the Netherlands may follow suit. The matter is now also being examined in Austria and Germany. Only the British Government deny the importance of this constitutional architecture, and they also want to deny the British people the chance to express their view, whether for or against. The idea that the matter is somehow of less significance than the mayoralty of Hartlepool is beyond parody.
	Opposition Members have been scouring the media for a rational explanation from Government Front Bench Members, to give us an insight into their thinking. At a time when the Prime Minister has admitted that the matter is of fundamental importance, the Minister for Europe gave us an entirely risible insight into this debate in an article in the New Statesman dated 25 August.
	There is no time for me to quote from the article, but I invite hon. Members to read it. It is incredible that this should be the justification—the background, the mood music—for the huge constitutional change that is before us. His notion that cultural identities have not been undermined by the EU has nothing to do with the constitutional problems that beset us. If the Minister for Europe is so confident about his assertions, I invite him to let the people decide.
	Additionally, there is a functional flaw in the Government's position. The Foreign Secretary has spelled out a series of red lines, or "insistences", that he will put before the IGC. Of course, our Government have the right of veto but I simply put to the Minister for Europe the very obvious point that, in the inevitable discussion and horse-trading at the IGC, we have already effectively sold the pass. How much better would it be if the Foreign Secretary were able to say that he could not accept a particular proposal because it has to go before the British people to seek their approval? Even the Adrian Mole school of diplomacy might suggest to the Foreign Secretary that that would greatly strengthen his hand. It might, for example, enable him to win much clearer rights for national Parliaments, including a power of referral back to the Commission, and real powers of rejection that would give real meaning to the principle of subsidiarity.
	Finally, let us remind ourselves of how this Constitution opens. It says:
	"Reflecting the will of the citizens and states of Europe to build a common future . . . "
	How can the Minister for Europe explain how it does that if the people have not been asked? How have the Government divined the citizens' will? They have certainly not done that through their website on the draft constitutional treaty, and the matter was not even in the Labour party's manifesto. They cannot have made the divination from opinion polls, because the polls' message is clear, or from talking to constituents, because we know that constituents do not want the constitution. There is some sort of Mystic Meg influence guiding the Government's thinking.
	We believe that the constitution takes the EU in the wrong direction. Others certainly disagree with that point of view, but no rational and honest individual can deny that the matter has immense constitutional significance for a country that has never had a written constitution before. It will be to this Government's unending shame, when history makes its judgment, if the people of this country are denied the opportunity to express a view. To deny them that is a dereliction of the Government's obligations to the people of this country.

Denis MacShane: This has been a good debate. We have just heard a fine speech from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), the shadow Minister for Europe, although I think that I may have read it in the Daily Mail about nine months ago; apart from the invitation to read the New Statesman, which I thoroughly endorse, he read it out with considerable vim and vigour. I shall not read from a prepared text, but will try to reply to the debate itself.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk yet again made the point that this matter was not included in the Labour manifesto, but we actually put it to the British people:
	"Labour wants the next Inter-governmental Conference in 2004 to address public concerns about the way the EU works, spelling out in a clear statement of principles what should and should not be done at European level."
	That is precisely what we shall now begin to do.
	Occasionally, it is important to read the motions before the House. The Opposition motion refers to the constitutional draft presented by Mr. Giscard d'Estaing as though it were a given—a settled end text—but it is not.

Michael Spicer: rose—

Mark Francois: rose—

Denis MacShane: The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) should have done the House the courtesy of being in the Chamber for more than two minutes of the Rothermere speech that we have just heard. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) has been here for the debate so I willingly give way to him.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for giving way.
	The Government's position, with which I disagree, is that they will not grant a referendum on the current draft of the treaty. However, may I ask the Minister a question about principle? Because of the nature of the IGC there are bound to be some changes in the draft before it finally emerges as a definitive text. When the Government have the definitive text, post-IGC, will they at least reserve the possibility of granting a referendum after the IGC process?

Denis MacShane: Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that if in the Government's opinion there are such fundamental changes in the relationship between the UK and its European partners as a result of the end text from the IGC, Parliament can clearly take a view of how it then wants to discuss or ratify the matter.
	May I return to the points made by hon. Members who gave considered speeches? I do so as someone who, like most Members, actually loves being a Member of this place, who likes the House of Commons, enjoys sitting on these green Benches and thinks of all the other right hon. and hon. Ladies and Gentlemen who have sat here over the decades and centuries. When I do not have a final text to consider or to discuss with the House, I am honestly reluctant to accept that several hundred years of parliamentary tradition should be thrown out of the window by conceding the cause for a Rothermere referendum—a plebiscite—that will hand most power to the press.
	The Opposition have been clear from day one that the campaign was launched by the anti-European press; they said that they wanted a referendum to say no to Europe, not to test the will of the British people. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who spoke after the two main introductory speeches, called for a referendum as a matter in principle, but in another place his colleague, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said:
	"I am bound to say that I remain rather an old fogey regarding national referendums: I prefer to see parliamentary democracy work if it possibly can."
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously a young fogey, as he wants to throw away parliamentary democracy and sign up for a referendum.
	Another of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Dahrendorf, said that
	"this is not a constitution, and no national referendum will change the fact that it is an international treaty to set up a limited number of supranational procedures and institutions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 180–204.]
	I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that point. What will be brought back to the House will be a treaty, which the Government will seek to sign, and its translation into law in this place.
	If we believe in parliamentary democracy, we should wait and see what is in that treaty. The former Prime Minister, Mr. Major, put that point well when he spoke on the "Today" programme. He said that he was in favour of a referendum if the treaty so changes our relationship with the EU, but he said that we should wait and see. I invite the House to be a little patient.

Robert Walter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Denis MacShane: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has been in the Chamber throughout the debate.

Robert Walter: I thank the Minister for giving way and for his references to centuries of parliamentary democracy, but perhaps he can tell the House what the point was of the referendum in 1975, proposed by a Labour Government who had renegotiated the treaty. They were not proposing to leave the EU; they were seeking affirmation of their renegotiation.

Denis MacShane: Of course if people had voted no, we would have left. Frankly, the 1975 referendum should be examined, as it relates to the point made so strongly by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who argued that the process of holding referendums somehow reconnected people to their elected political representatives. Well, I wish I could tell the House that I was persuaded by that argument. I have some experience because I worked in Geneva for some years—as hon. Members used to remind me—where referendums are held on every subject at national, cantonal and city level. I have to say that the turnout at elections and the standing of political leaders in Switzerland is—believe it or not—lower than in this country, so I fear that the notion that a referendum is somehow a magic key, a Harry Potter spell, to reconnect politicians and the people cannot be sustained.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) argued very strongly that we were going towards a state called Europe. I think that I quote him accurately. With all due respect to my hon. Friend—we have been friends for many years—I have to say that I am not sure that people could make that speech in almost any other European country and have their argument taken seriously. The notion that the eastern European countries that have voted so overwhelmingly to join the EU have done so because they are joining a state that somehow replaces their own is simply not a receivable argument. It is receivable in the Rothermere press and on the Conservative Benches, but it could not be made in Paris, Ireland or Spain, or in any other EU country.

Richard Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman has been here as well, so I shall give way.

Richard Bacon: The first sensible thing that I have heard the Minister say is that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made a fine speech, as many people would agree. Will the Minister clarify the position on the passerelle clause, because the Foreign Secretary told the European Scrutiny Committee the other day that the Government would seek to get it changed? Did any member of the British Government seek to table an amendment to the passerelle clause in the Convention on the Future of Europe?

Denis MacShane: The clause in question was inserted very late in the day. It was not introduced during the flow of things, as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—who is not here, alas—would acknowledge. That is exactly what we shall have to discuss on 4 October, and those in other European capitals all want changes, as I know from my all my contacts with them.
	Many institutions and individuals want changes. I have here a letter to sign off tonight to the Royal National Institution of the Blind, which wants more QMV in EU anti-discrimination legislation. We are saying that that should stay a question of unanimity, so I will have to disappoint the RNIB, but I expect that, as it represents the blind people of Britain, it would rather have more authority at European level to produce Europe-wide legislation, covering the problems that blind people face. The right hon. Member for Charnwood would say, "Oh well, that isn't really a European competence." He should discuss that with the RNIB.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) insisted on the sovereignty of Parliament. I think that I quote him correctly, so I am not quite sure, because I did not quite follow the thread of his argument, why he is proposing to transfer that sovereignty to a referendum. My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) and for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) made the good point that we, as Members of Parliament, need to discuss—

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 250.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 165.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	"That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to keeping Parliament fully informed of the progress of the IGC negotiations, including through the publication of a White Paper, and to continued intense Parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Constitutional Treaty; believes the proposals from the Convention on the Future of Europe are a good starting point for discussions between the elected governments of the EU's member states; further believes that, as the proposals do not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the EU and its Member States, and the role of national parliaments is strengthened, there is no reason to depart from the precedent set by previous governments, which rejected referendums on previous constitutional treaties; and notes that it will be for Parliament to decide on whether it should become part of UK law."

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Implementation and Compliance of the Common Fisheries Policy

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7623/03, Commission Communication towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, and No. 10509/03, Commission Communication on compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy: 'Compliance work plan and scoreboard'; takes note of the Government's support for the work plan; and supports the Government's objective of playing a constructive part in detailed discussion of the proposals to improve co-operation between enforcement agencies and of the feasibility study on the proposed Community Fisheries Control Agency.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 17 September, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002]. PETITION

Bicester Community Hospital

Tony Baldry: I am glad that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is in his place to listen to this petition.
	I am proud to present a petition signed by more than 7,000 of my constituents, mainly from the town of Bicester and numbering more than half the population of that town. The petition expresses concern about Bicester community hospital.
	The petition declares
	that the right hon. Member for Darlington announced in 1999 that Bicester Community Hospital would be extended from a 12-bed hospital to a 30-bed hospital following an extensive consultation on community hospitals in Oxfordshire;
	that The Secretary of State further asserted that an expanded Bicester Community Hospital was "important to developing modern, effective and dependable services alongside improved fairness" in Oxfordshire's health service;
	that NHS Officials have stated that funds intended for the new Bicester Community Hospital, following the closure of Burford and Watlington community hospitals, "have been invested in the system" already; that this "will not be affected even if the Bicester development does not go ahead"; and that there now appears to be no provision either for the building or the running of a Community Hospital in Bicester;
	that there is a sense of betrayal in Bicester and the surrounding areas with the Department of Health and NHS officials on the building of a new Community Hospital in Bicester.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health to honour its clear commitment to provide a new expanded Community Hospital for Bicester.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table

ROYAL HOSPITAL HASLAR

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Peter Viggers: Some of my parliamentary friends and colleagues have expressed mock surprise at my raising this issue in the House as the subject of an Adjournment debate, as I have raised it so many times before. However, I would certainly claim not to be a one-club golfer. I spoke in the House last Thursday about defence and I spoke and answered questions yesterday on behalf of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission. Nevertheless, it is true that, according to the ever-efficient Library, I have raised the issue of Haslar 63 times, and I shall continue to do so until the Government see sense and act to ensure that these facilities are used properly.
	The Royal hospital Haslar was originally a naval hospital that opened on 23 October 1753, so its 250th anniversary will occur shortly. However, I put the case for the hospital not because of its history but because of its superb facilities. Some £35 million has been spent on it in the past 10 years and it has outstanding operating suites and facilities.
	The problem arises because the Royal hospital Haslar is the only services hospital that the Ministry of Defence owns and controls. In 1988, a Ministry of Defence committee, which was chaired by Commodore Lawrence and comprised no medical personnel, decided that the best future for service medicine was to proceed with dramatic reconstruction. The committee was facing a significant shortfall of 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. in the key specialties. Recruitment to the armed forces medical services has traditionally been good, but recently retention has been bad. In the important faculties, such as general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, anaesthetics and general medicine, there is approximately a 75 per cent. shortfall. The Ministry of Defence has therefore only a quarter of the personnel that it needs.
	The Lawrence committee recommended that there should be a new centre of defence medicine. The Government accepted the recommendation, but after it was touted around various places where they would have liked it to be located, it ended up at Birmingham, which is not a popular centre.
	Recruitment to the Defence Medical Services is currently good, but retention remains bad. That is why it has been necessary in Iraq to use reservists, some of whom are charging approximately £1,000 a day in compensation for their loss of earnings. I have read press reports of some doctors being paid £180,000 or £250,000 a year in compensation for loss of civilian earnings to make up for the lack of service personnel. There was a serious problem and the solution that the Ministry of Defence proposed was the closure of the Royal hospital Haslar. The original statement made it clear that it would not close before 2002. There was local uproar and a march of 22,000 people who expressed their deep concern at the loss of the local facility.
	There are several concerns, not only in services medicine, but I shall give one more example of the latter. The Ministry of Defence has decided to cut the umbilical cord between medical staff and service patients at the same time as the closure programme. Until fairly recently, service doctors gave preference to service personnel, but that is no longer the case. There is no fast-tracking and 18,338 service personnel are currently medically downgraded. That means that, for example, a paratrooper with a back problem has to queue for treatment with an elderly lady who needs a hip replacement. That is a serious disadvantage from a services point of view. Defence Medical Services has not prospered by the decision.
	Let me deal with the sphere of activity for which the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) is responsible. I am pleased and grateful that he is responding to the debate. Although we have a Ministry of Defence health problem, it is also a specific problem for the civilian population of the Gosport-south Hampshire area.
	The facilities at Haslar are outstanding. It has 280 beds, nine exceptional operating theatres and a range of other facilities, including radiological equipment and magnetic resonance imaging equipment. Its telemedical equipment is as good as that anywhere in the world. Indeed, it is a world leader in telemedicine. The local community needs the facility. The next piece of the jigsaw puzzle is that the national health service has decided that the Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham, which is eight to 12 miles away from my constituency, needs to be renewed. A private finance initiative has been proposed for it. The plan is to complete the PFI in 2007, though no one is putting money on that happening. Like most programmes, it might creep to the right and be delayed. Anyway, let us take 2007 as the relevant date.
	The original plan was to close the outstandingly good facilities at Royal hospital Haslar in 2002. The subsequent plan was that they would close in 2007. There has, however, been a development since then. I raised the issue on the Floor of the House in the Christmas Adjournment debate, and subsequently received a letter, dated 29 January 2003, from the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Public Health. She pointed out that, following a consultation by the local authority
	"a commitment was made to the people of Gosport to develop a substantial facility at RH Haslar (subject to Ministry of Defence agreement on the use of the site), with day case surgery, diagnostic services, outpatient clinics and the Haslar Accident Treatment Centre. The local NHS remains committed to this vision, and are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to take it forward."
	The problem is that the caveat
	"subject to Ministry of Defence agreement on the use of the site"
	is proving quite significant because some people in the Ministry appear to be dragging their heels in regard to the concept of effecting the necessary transfer of premises from the Ministry to the NHS and the local hospitals trust. I have heard it said that the commitment is not the one that I have just read to the House, but one to develop facilities on the Gosport peninsula. That is not what the Minister said, however. She said that the facilities would be retained at Haslar, and that is what we want to hear. If it is indeed the case that they will be retained at Haslar, it is important that all those involved should come together to discuss the manner in which the transfer will be carried out.
	I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), who wrote to me about the transfer of authority and responsibility, and about the proposed MOD attitude after 2007. He kindly invited me to go and see him, which I look forward to doing on the morning of Wednesday 15 October. What we need now is an absolute commitment from the NHS that it understands the need for the Haslar facilities, and that it is committed to an orderly transfer of the premises there from the Ministry of Defence to the national health service.
	A few months ago, before the summer recess, there was a fear—indeed, it was a stated intention—that the King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst would need to close. It is a charitable structure. That caused concern locally, because it was widely accepted that the facilities in Hampshire were not sufficient for us to manage without that hospital. Haslar hospital is quite different, however. It is much more substantial, much more important, and much more geared to the Minister's and the Government's initiatives.
	The Government have recently introduced significant initiatives, one of which involves diagnostic and treatment centres. In these centres, there is virtually a production line of operations, which can take place in specially allocated premises. Such a production line of hip replacements, cataracts and the like—procedures known as cold surgery—can take place in a dedicated hospital, without the disruptions that can be caused by major accidents and emergencies. Treating the victims of major road accidents would normally take priority over cold surgery. Cold surgery therefore needs facilities that can be used on a regular, structured basis so that it can be carried out in a well-organised way. That is exactly the kind of facility that Haslar can offer.
	There is also an accident treatment centre at Haslar, which is ideally suitable for treating the victims of minor accidents who do not need to go to the accident and emergency unit at Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham. I believe that the number of accident treatment centre cases is about 8,000 a year, and a study has shown that some 6,000 additional cases could be taken away from the accident and emergency unit in Cosham by treating them in Haslar. Clearly, that initiative would take some pressure off the district general hospital at Cosham.
	I am pleading for an understanding by Government at the highest level that we cannot do without Haslar hospital. The primary care trust has taken an initiative, and has asked the strategic health authority to consider the future of the Haslar site. We need to bring all the major actors into this dialogue: the Ministry of Defence, which is the current owner of the site, the national health service, which is the holder of the purse strings through the PCT, the ambulance trust, which has a heavy burden because of the extra carriage of patients between Gosport and the Queen Alexandra hospital, Gosport borough council, which is the planning authority, the hospitals trust and all the other participants—stakeholders, as the Government like to call them—in the health scene in south Hampshire. That is urgently needed, because we cannot manage without the facilities at Haslar hospital. I urge the Minister to respond to this debate, and to agree that he will participate in this initiative and ensure that those facilities are not lost.
	The Ministry of Defence has said that it wishes to get out of the business of hospital management. I hold my own view on that. The Defence Medical Services has not only surgical and medical skills, but administrative skills. I maintain that it would be helpful to the Defence Medical Services to have a facility at which defence medical personnel could train in administration as well as in medical matters. Haslar, which has superb facilities and is highly regarded, could be a centre for an esprit de corps in the Portsmouth and south Hampshire area. The Defence Medical Services would appreciate that.
	Once the premises are transferred to the hospitals trust, the Ministry of Defence, having achieved its primary objective of getting out of hospital management, may well reconsider the facilities and realise that a combination of Queen Alexandra hospital and Haslar hospital would provide an excellent training ground for its own personnel. The Ministry of Defence may come back on side and realise that it has that opportunity.
	My plea is for the Minister to recognise the problems, and to undertake to involve himself in the transfer of premises at Haslar hospital to the national health service.

John Hutton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on securing this debate. I assure him that I will draw his comments on the Defence Medical Services to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am here to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions about the national health service. I am sure that he will appreciate that I must confine my remarks to that subject.
	All right hon. and hon. Members naturally and rightly attach the highest importance to developments in the NHS in their constituencies, because access to good quality, convenient health care services is an essential ingredient in the life of any community. That is true in Gosport, and it is certainly true in Barrow and Furness. I fully understand the concerns that have been raised in Gosport by the hon. Gentleman's constituents over the provision of local NHS services, especially the future of the Royal hospital Haslar.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, for many years the Royal hospital has played a central role in the provision of NHS services in his constituency. I pay tribute, as I am sure he would, to the professionalism and dedication of all the staff at the hospital. Any fundamental change along the lines that he has talked about is bound to raise concerns and anxieties locally. It is clear to him—it is clear to me, too—that decisions concerning the configuration of local services need to be made. We need to get on and make them in order to allay legitimate concerns and lay the foundations for the growth and expansion in services that he and I want to see.
	It was clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he appreciates the fact that these decisions are first and foremost the responsibility of the local primary care trust, the NHS trusts and the strategic health authority. Any decision should be made after the fullest possible local consultation and involvement. People's concerns should always be responded to fully and fairly. They should have the full facts before them, and they need to be aware of all the available options.
	I know that the NHS in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is committed to those principles as it takes forward work on the best pattern of local services. If he has any concerns to the contrary, he should raise them with me and I will pursue them vigorously on his behalf.
	I also agree that there is a challenging agenda for local NHS organisations, but I believe that the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust is responding vigorously. As one of the largest trusts in England, providing acute health care services for nearly 1 million people covering Portsmouth, the Isle of Wight and the surrounding region, it is already planning for the future. As the hon. Gentleman said, central to its plans is the new private finance initiative scheme for the redevelopment of hospital services in Portsmouth, focusing on the current Queen Alexandra site in Cosham. As he knows, the plan is to develop a high quality centre for acute services, which will serve as the hub of a network of services for outpatients, rehabilitation, preoperative assessment and much more, available in local communities for local communities throughout south-east Hampshire. I understand that the plans are strongly supported by local clinicians.
	In summer 2002, a review of the proposals was conducted to ensure that the objectives still met the needs of the local health system. Clinical staff from both the NHS trust and the primary care trust confirmed their original view that the integration of acute care on a single site was the most clinically sustainable and effective model, complemented by a variety of local services. Plans for the new hospital are well under way. The Portsmouth NHS trust has recently announced the name of its preferred bidder, the Hospital Company, and is now developing a full business case for approval. It is envisaged that work will start on the site in February next year, and that the new hospital will open in 2007. Once the work is completed, in-patient services currently at Haslar will move to the new site. In the meantime, they will remain at Haslar.
	To address short-term capacity problems, the Portsmouth trust is working in partnership with the independent sector on a separate project to shorten the time for which local patients wait for orthopaedic surgery. The idea is to commission an overseas clinical team of surgeons, nurses and allied health professionals who specialise in the delivery of orthopaedic services. A team from the Portsmouth trust and the Plymouth NHS trust is currently in South Africa to assess and select clinical staff and finalise the appropriate contract negotiations. The project will then begin next month, continuing until 2004. I should make clear that the focus for providing the long-term capacity needed in the local NHS to reduce waiting times for patients in south-east Hampshire will be based on the redeveloped Queen Alexandra hospital site in Cosham.
	Both projects are major new developments for the local health community which form part of a wider strategic vision for the future of local health services throughout Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The strategic health authority is currently steering a process known as Healthfit, the aim being to develop a strategic framework for local health services that will be safe, sustainable, affordable—which is important—and fit for the future. A key priority now is to identify the pattern of local health services, and Fareham and Gosport primary care trust is leading a project to consider that. The PCT will ensure that the process fully involves health professionals, local patients and communities, as well as elected representatives. As the right pattern of services becomes clearer, the local NHS will be able to match those services with the most appropriate premises.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly said much about the future of the Haslar hospital. It has been a subject of local discussion for many years, particularly since 1998 when the Ministry of Defence first announced its intention of withdrawing from the site in 2007. The commitments made in 2000—confirmed by the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), when she wrote to the hon. Gentleman in January—still stand. The NHS in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight remain committed to the pattern of services for the population on the Gosport peninsula that were agreed following the consultation in 2000.
	As I have said, however, the future of the Haslar hospital cannot be seen in isolation. The NHS has a responsibility to examine a range of options to ensure that primary and secondary services are meeting the needs of local patients, and conform to wider plans for modernisation. The precise configuration of the services is being discussed locally, as the hon. Gentleman will know. Following confirmation they can be matched with the right premises, at the right price, to ensure that resources are used effectively and efficiently to provide the range of services needed by the local population. As part of that process, the NHS continues to engage in discussions with the MOD so that the Haslar hospital can be considered a possible option for the location of future services. However, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge, the NHS has a duty to use public money wisely, and must therefore consider other options.
	The hon. Gentleman again referred to the need for joint working between the NHS and the Ministry of Defence on this issue, and he said that there are no clear arrangements for the transfer of services. I am particularly concerned about this issue and the suggestions that he has made this evening, but I am advised that what he said is not the case. In fact, both sectors continue to work closely not only on the future of the Royal hospital Haslar site, but to confirm the provision of NHS and defence medical services in the local area.
	The MOD has confirmed its intention to withdraw from the site in 2007, and that confirmation provides a firm foundation through which the NHS and especially the MOD can ensure continuity of NHS services for local people. It is clear that services will need to be provided from the Royal hospital site until such time as the new hospital is ready to receive admissions.
	Work is being taken forward through a local partnership board, which meets quarterly, and through a high level strategic partnership that provides an overview of all aspects of partnership work between the NHS and the MOD. The priority is to ensure a robust and practical way forward that is sustainable for the NHS, and which will meet the needs of local people. However, any decision taken by the NHS on the future use of the Royal hospital Haslar site will clearly need to take into account the MOD's own plans for the rest of the Haslar site. The MOD and the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency take the lead on this issue, and I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the MOD will meet him next month to discuss arrangements for withdrawing from the management of the hospital. Any decisions on the use of the site will clearly be subject to the necessary local planning approval processes.
	The future of the Royal hospital Haslar is obviously of great concern to the hon. Gentleman and I genuinely understand the worries that he expressed this evening. It is our policy that primary care trusts, in partnership with local trusts and the strategic health authority, and in the light of their specific local knowledge and expertise, should decide the priorities for the NHS locally, including the location of any eventual services. This is an opportunity to plan for growth and expansion in NHS services locally; we are not talking about contracting the range of services available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. That is the context in which, I hope, he and his constituents will see these developments.
	I conclude by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that every effort is being made by the local NHS to plan ahead for the future. It will continue to work with the MOD, and with him, to ensure a model of care that best meets the needs of the people whom he represents.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eight o'clock.